וּכְגוֹן זֶה כּוֹפִין עַל מִדַּת סְדוֹם.
In a case such as this, one compels another to refrain from behavior characteristic of Sodom. We force a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. If one denies another use of his possessions, even though he would incur no loss or damage by granting use of his property, his conduct is considered to be characteristic of Sodom. The courts may sometimes compel such a person to waive his legal rights.
(סִימָן: ״עֲנָקִים״ ״לְחָיָיו״ ״לוּחוֹת״ ״חָרוּת״). אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וַעֲנָקִים לְגַרְגְּרוֹתֶיךָ״, אִם מֵשִׂים אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כַּעֲנָק זֶה שֶׁרָף עַל הַצַּוָּאר וְנִרְאֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם לָאו — אֵין תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ.
In light of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites several expositions of verses proposed by Rabbi Eliezer, while first providing them with a mnemonic: Chains, cheeks, tablets, engraved. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9)? If a person makes himself like a chain that hangs loosely on the neck, i.e., if a scholar is not pushy and disruptive to others, and he is also seen but not seen, i.e., just as a chain is covered by clothes and hair, so too, the scholar does not let himself be seen, his Torah study will endure. But if not, if he acts in a rude and arrogant manner, his Torah study will not endure.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״לְחָיָו כַּעֲרוּגַת הַבּוֹשֶׂם״, אִם מֵשִׂים אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כַּעֲרוּגָה זוֹ שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין בָּהּ, וּכְבוֹשֶׂם זֶה שֶׁהַכֹּל מִתְבַּשְּׂמִין בָּהּ — תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים.
And Rabbi Eliezer also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “His cheeks are like a bed of spices” (Song of Songs 5:13)? If a person makes himself humble like this garden bed upon which everyone treads, and like this spice with which everyone perfumes himself, i.e., which benefits not only the one who wears it, his Torah study will endure. But if not, his Torah study will not endure.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה״, אִם מֵשִׂים אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּמִדְבָּר זֶה שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין בּוֹ — תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם לָאו — אֵין תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ.
Similarly, Rav Mattana said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The well that the princes dug out, that the nobles of the people delved, with the scepter, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah” (Numbers 21:18)? If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, his Torah study will endure and be given to him as a gift [mattana]. And if not, his Torah study will not endure.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יַחֲרוֹךְ רְמִיָּה צֵידוֹ״ — לֹא יִחְיֶה וְלֹא יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים צַיָּיד הָרַמַּאי.
The Gemara continues with this topic: Rav Sheizvi said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The slothful man [remiyya] will not roast [yaḥarokh] his catch” (Proverbs 12:27)? The deceitful [rammai] hunter will not live [yiḥyeh] a long life [ya’arikh]. A deceitful hunter continues to hunt more and more animals without holding on to the animals he has already caught. Similarly, someone who continues to study new material without reviewing what he has already learned will not be successful.
נְפַקָא בַּת קָלָא וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִיחָא לָיךְ דְּלִיסְפּוֹ לָךְ אַרְבַּע מְאָה שְׁנֵי, אוֹ דְּתִיזְכּוֹ אַתְּ וְדָרָךְ לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי? אָמַר: דְּנִיזְכּוֹ אֲנָא וְדָרַיי לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי. אָמַר לָהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: תְּנוּ לוֹ זוֹ וָזוֹ.
Due to the merit of Rabbi Perida’s great devotion to his students, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Is it preferable to you that four hundred years be added to your life, or that you and the rest of your generation will merit the World-to-Come? He said: I prefer that I and my generation merit the World-to-Come. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angels: Give him both; he shall live a very long life and he and the rest of his generation will merit the World-to-Come.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַחָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: לָא לֵיחוּשׁ לֵיהּ לְסָבָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵהַגְרוֹנְיָא: הָכִי אָמַר רָבָא, צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן חָזֵי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. חֲזִי, וְאִיעֲנִישׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵהַגְרוֹנְיָא.
Rav Aḥa bar Taḥalifa said to them: Should we not be concerned with the respect of the Elder, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, and present the knife to him for inspection, as this is his town? Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya said to them: That is unnecessary, since Rava said as follows: A Torah scholar may examine a knife for himself. Rabbi Elazar from Hagronya then inspected the knife, but he was later punished at the hand of Heaven for disregarding the honor of the senior rabbi.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא, מִי מִתְחֲזֵא כְּאַפְקֵרוּתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֵין חׇכְמָה וְאֵין תְּבוּנָה וְאֵין עֵצָה לְנֶגֶד ה׳״, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם — אֵין חוֹלְקִין כָּבוֹד לָרַב.
Afterward, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Behavior such as this, the way I acted in your presence just now, does it appear like irreverent behavior? Rav Ashi said to him: With regard to this it is stated: “There is no wisdom or understanding or council against the Lord” (Proverbs 21:30). The Sages expounded this verse as follows: Wherever a desecration of God’s name is involved, no respect is paid even to a teacher, i.e., in such a situation one should disregard the respect due to his teacher’s wisdom and understanding and object to the inappropriate behavior.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: שְׁנֵיהֶן לֹא קָנוּ עֵירוּב, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי בֵּית שַׁעַר מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ, הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר אַכְסַדְרָה וּמִרְפֶּסֶת — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. אִי בַּיִת מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ — קָא מְטַלְטֵל לְבַיִת דְּלָא מְעָרֵב לֵיהּ.
The Sages said to Raḥava: Neither of them has acquired his eiruv. Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If you consider either house a gatehouse, the halakha with regard to one who places his eiruv in a gatehouse, a porch, or a balcony, is that it is not a valid eiruv. And if you consider either one a house, he would be carrying into a house for which he is not establishing an eiruv. Since the assumption that benefits one of them harms the other, and there is no way to establish firmly the status of these houses, the residents of both courtyards fail to acquire their eiruv.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין, אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת — מְעָרְבִין לְדַעְתּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.
Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person’s benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person’s disadvantage in his absence. As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the eiruv, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person’s disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person’s behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent.
וְ״אֵימָתַי״ לְפָרֵשׁ הוּא? וְהָא תְּנַן: וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִים: הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא, וּמַלְוֶה בְּרִיבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is the word when invariably a sign that Rabbi Yehuda merely seeks to explain? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The following people are disqualified by the Sages from giving testimony, as they are people who commit transgressions for profit: One who plays with dice [kubiyya] for money, and one who lends money at interest, and those who fly pigeons, i.e., people who arrange competitions between pigeons while placing wagers on which bird will fly faster. The reason for their disqualification is that those who play games of chance do not fully relinquish ownership of their gambling money, as they expect to win their bet. Consequently, one who accepts money in such circumstances has effectively taken something that the giver has not wholeheartedly handed over, and he is therefore like a robber, at least by rabbinic decree. The list of those disqualified from giving testimony includes merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אוּמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ אוּמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא — הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר.
Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? When he has no occupation other than this one, but if he has a worthy occupation other than this, although he also earns money by these means, this person is qualified to give testimony. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one who earns money by means of games of chance is not a criminal or a robber. Rather, the reason why these people are disqualified from giving testimony is because they are not occupied in the constructive development of the world. As they earn their money without effort, they do not care about the monetary losses of others. Consequently, if they have any other occupation, they are valid witnesses.
אַלְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי נָזִיר אִי לָא נָזִיר הוּא — לָא מְשַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא יָדַע אִי קָנֵי אִי לָא קָנֵי — לָא גָּמַר וּמַקְנֵה.
Consequently, it can be inferred that since he is in doubt as to whether he is a nazirite or he is not a nazirite, he does not submit himself to and accept his vow of naziriteship. Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies those who play games of chance from delivering testimony due to the fact that they are robbers. Since the player does not know whether he will win and acquire the money or whether he will lose and not acquire it, he does not fully transfer ownership of the money with which he plays to others, which means that the one who gains from these games receives money that was not wholeheartedly given to him. He is therefore likened to a robber, at least on the rabbinic level, which disqualifies him from giving testimony.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיָּכוֹף אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא״.
The Gemara cites another halakha derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַכּוֹפֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה הָוְיָין לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְהוּגָּנִין. אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, מַאי קְרָאָה: ״גַּם בְּלֹא דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא טוֹב״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence. Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״גַּם בְּלֹא דַעַת נֶפֶשׁ לֹא טוֹב״ — זֶה הַכּוֹפֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה. ״וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא״ — זֶה הַבּוֹעֵל וְשׁוֹנֶה.
That was also taught in a baraita: “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva. “And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse with his wife and repeats the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כׇּל בָּנָיו זְכָרִים יִבְעוֹל וְיִשְׁנֶה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — לְדַעַת, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת.
The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males should have intercourse with his wife and repeat the act? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts with his wife’s consent. There, the baraita that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds without her consent.
הָא מִדְּקָאָמַר ״וּבַלַּיְלָה יְהִי כַגַּנָּב״ — אַלְמָא ״אוֹר״ יְמָמָא הוּא! הָתָם הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא כִּנְהוֹרָא דְּאַנְּפָשׁוֹת קָאָתֵי — רוֹצֵחַ הוּא, וְנִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְאִי מְסַפְּקָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא כְּלֵילְיָא — יְהִי בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּגַנָּב, וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
From the fact that the end of the verse states: “And in the night he is as a thief,” apparently the word or at the beginning of the verse is a reference to day, as the verse contrasts between night and or. The Gemara rejects this contention. There, this is what the verse is saying: If the matter is as clear to you as light, that the thief has come into the house prepared to take a life, he is a murderer; and the owner of the house may save himself by taking the life of the intruder. In that case, one may protect himself from a thief who breaks into his house, even by killing the intruder if necessary. And if the matter is as unclear to you as the night, he should be nothing more than a thief in your eyes and not a murderer; and therefore one may not save himself by taking the life of the thief. This verse is not referring to actual day and night; rather, it uses these terms as metaphors for certainty and uncertainty.
תַּנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לְעוֹלָם יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּזָּב קְרָאוֹ ״מֶרְכָּב״, וּבָאִשָּׁה קְרָאוֹ ״מוֹשָׁב״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְתִבְחַר לְשׁוֹן עֲרוּמִים״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְדַעַת שְׂפָתַי בָּרוּר מִלֵּלוּ״.
Likewise, a baraita was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person should always converse euphemistically, as one finds in the following verses. The first: “And whichever saddle that the zav rides upon shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:9), which discusses the impurity imparted by a zav to an object on which he sits, calls this action riding. And the verse: “And anyone who touches anything on which she sat” (Leviticus 15:22), which discusses the parallel ritual impurity of a woman, a zava, calls the action sitting. Since riding is slightly demeaning for a woman, as it involves an immodest splaying of the legs, the verse avoids the term riding and opts to convey the more modest image of sitting. And it says in another verse: “And you choose the language of the crafty” (Job 15:5), meaning that one should be clever when speaking and avoid inappropriate phrases. And it says in another verse: “My words shall utter the uprightness of my heart; and that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely” (Job 33:3).
מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא — תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאוֹמֵר ״וְתִבְחַר לְשׁוֹן עֲרוּמִים״. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּדְרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּמִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא לָא — וְאוֹמֵר ״וְדַעַת שְׂפָתַי בָּרוּר מִלֵּלוּ״.
The Gemara asks: What is the need for the proofs from the two additional verses introduced by the phrase: And it says? The baraita already proved its point from the verses with regard to zav and zava. The Gemara answers: The additional verses are necessary, lest you say: This requirement to use clean language applies only in the language written in the Torah, but in rabbinic formulations, no, there is no obligation to use clean language. To counter this argument, the tanna says, come and hear: And it says: “And you choose the language of the crafty,” which indicates that this principle extends beyond the language of the Torah. And lest you say that this requirement applies only to rabbinic language, but when it comes to ordinary speech, no, one need not speak euphemistically, the baraita adds: And it says: “And that which my lips know they shall speak sincerely,” i.e., one must speak euphemistically in every situation.
וּבְאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי לָא כְּתִיב ״טָמֵא״? אֶלָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ — מִשְׁתַּעֵי בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּנְפִישִׁין מִילֵּי — מִשְׁתַּעֵי בְּלָשׁוֹן קְצָרָה. כִּדְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לְעוֹלָם יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִידוֹ דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the word impure written in the Torah? Apparently, the Torah does not consistently employ euphemisms, and indeed the word impure appears regularly. Rather, anywhere that two phrases are equal in length, the verse speaks employing a euphemism. Anywhere that the words of the euphemism are more numerous, requiring a lengthier description, the Torah speaks employing concise language, in accordance with that which Rav Huna said that Rav said, and some say it was Rav Huna who said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner.
הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַלְמִידֵי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב. חַד אָמַר: שַׁוִּיתִינַּן הַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא כְּדָבָר אַחֵר מְסַנְּקָן, וְחַד אָמַר: שַׁוִּיתִינַּן הַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא כִּגְדִי מְסַנְּקָן, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּעִי רַב בַּהֲדֵי דְּהַאיְךְ.
The Gemara relates an incident involving the use of appropriate language: There were these two students who were sitting before Rav and were weary from studying a complex issue. One of them said: This halakha we are studying is rendering us as tired as a tired [mesankan] something else, a euphemism for a pig. And the other one said: This halakha is rendering us as tired as a tired kid. Rav would not speak with that student who made reference to a pig, as one who speaks inappropriately is undoubtedly flawed in character.
רַב כָּהֲנָא חֲלַשׁ. שַׁדְּרוּהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל בְּדוֹק מַאי דִּינֵיהּ. אֲתָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. קַרְעֵיהּ לִלְבוּשֵׁיהּ, וְאַהְדְּרֵיהּ לְקִרְעֵיהּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ, וּבָכֵי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא לָא קָאָמֵינָא. ״וּמוֹצִיא דִבָּה הוּא כְסִיל״.
The Gemara relates another incident in praise of one who is careful to refrain from improper or negative language. Rav Kahana fell ill, and the Sages sent Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, as their emissary to him. They said to him: Go and assess what is Rav Kahana’s condition at present. Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, went and found that Rav Kahana had passed away. He rent his garment and turned his garment around so the tear would be behind him and would not be immediately apparent, and he was crying as he was coming. They said to him: Did Rav Kahana pass away? He said to them: I did not say that, as the verse states: “And he who utters slander is a fool” (Proverbs 10:18). This verse indicates that it is undesirable to be a bearer of bad tidings, and if one must inform others of the unfortunate news, he should do so in an indirect manner.
בִּזְמַן שֶׁבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן — אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֵּזֶל, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַקְפִּיד עֲלֵיהֶן — מוּתָּרִין מִשּׁוּם גֵּזֶל, וּפִטּוּרִין מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר.
When the owner is particular about the figs and the grapes respectively, it is prohibited to take them, due to the prohibition against robbery, and one with permission to eat them is obligated due to the mitzva to separate the tithe from them, as they are considered like any other fruit. When the owner is not particular about them, it is permitted to eat them due to the fact that the prohibition against robbery does not apply, and one who eats them is exempt due to the fact that the obligation to separate the tithe does not apply, as they are ownerless property. This indicates that if one is not particular about an object, even if it is located in property that he is guarding for another purpose, that object is not thereby rendered significant. The same reasoning applies to breadcrumbs that remain in one’s house.
דִּילְמָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ לְבָתַר אִיסּוּרָא, וְלָאו בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימָא, וְלָא מָצֵי מְבַטֵּיל. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וַעֲשָׂאָן הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְחָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Perhaps he will find it only after it is already forbidden, and at that time it is no longer in his possession and he is therefore unable to nullify leaven when it is already Passover, as Rabbi Elazar said: Two items are not in a person’s possession in terms of legal ownership, and yet the Torah rendered him responsible for them as though they were in his property. And these are they: An open pit in the public domain, for which the one who excavated it is liable to pay any damages it causes even though it does not belong to him; and leaven in one’s house from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan and onward. As this leaven has no monetary value, since it is prohibited to eat or to derive benefit from it, it is not his property, and nevertheless he violates a prohibition if it remains in his domain.
וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא לָאו מִצְוָה הוּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי״ אוֹ ״שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״ —
The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where there is personal interest intermingled with the performance of a mitzva, is it not nevertheless considered a mitzva? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my son will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will be one destined for the World-to-Come,
הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר! דִּילְמָא בָּתַר דְּבָדֵק אָתֵי לְעַיּוֹנֵי בָּתְרַהּ.
this person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that mitzva is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the mitzva. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the mitzva, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.
וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא לָאו מִצְוָה הוּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי״ אוֹ ״שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר! דִּילְמָא בָּתַר דְּבָדֵק אָתֵי לְעַיּוֹנֵי בָּתְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where there is personal interest intermingled with the performance of a mitzva, is it not nevertheless considered a mitzva? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my son will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will be one destined for the World-to-Come, this person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that mitzva is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the mitzva. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the mitzva, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.
אֲזַל רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתְּתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אָמַר: וּמָה אִילּוּ דָּיְיקִינַן בְּהָנֵי סָהֲדֵי, דְּהַאי דְּקָאָמַר שָׁלֹשׁ — בִּתְחִלַּת שָׁלֹשׁ, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר חָמֵשׁ — בְּסוֹף חָמֵשׁ, וְהָוְיָא עֵדוּת מוּכְחֶשֶׁת, וְלָא קָטְלִינַן, וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּם וְנִקְּטֹיל מִסְּפֵקָא?! וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה״ ״וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה״!
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, went and said the halakha of Abaye before Rava. Rava said to him that Abaye’s explanation must be rejected: And were we to closely examine the statements of these witnesses and ask them when precisely the incident occurred, and find that the one who says at three hours means that it occurred at the beginning of the third hour, and the one who says at five hours means that it occurred at the end of the fifth hour, it would be contradictory testimony and we would not kill the accused on the basis of this testimony; and will we arise and kill based on uncertainty? Although their testimony could be valid, it could also be void. Can the court execute the accused based on that uncertainty? And consider that the Merciful One says in the Torah: “And the congregation shall judge…and the congregation shall deliver” (Numbers 35:24–25), from which it is derived that judges must do everything in their power to save an accused from the death penalty.
וַהֲרֵי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יוֹשִׁיט אָדָם כּוֹס יַיִן לְנָזִיר וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לִבְנֵי נֹחַ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״, הָא לִכְלָבִים — שְׁרֵי!
The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: And yet there is the prohibition against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as it is written: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer a limb cut from a living animal to a descendant of Noah, who is prohibited by Noahide law from eating a limb from a living animal? The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a gentile is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. However, it is permitted for one to throw it to dogs. Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּכֹּל מִתְרַפְּאִין, חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת
When Ravin came from the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may heal oneself with any substance from which one may not derive benefit, except for idolatry or forbidden sexual relations
וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.
or bloodshed.
וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? סְבָרָא הוּא: כִּי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָרֵי דּוּרַאי אֲמַר לִי: זִיל קַטְלֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, וְאִי לָא — קָטְלִינָא לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיקְטְלוּךְ וְלָא תִּיקְטוֹל, מַאי חָזֵית דִּדְמָא דִידָךְ סוּמָּק טְפֵי? דִּילְמָא דְּמָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא סוּמָּק טְפֵי.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha with regard to murder itself? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: This is similar to a certain man who came before Rava and said to him: A local official said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you. Rava said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. What did you think, that your blood is redder and more precious than his? Perhaps that man’s blood is redder. Apparently, one may not save his own life by taking someone else’s.
וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין אָסוּר — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין מוּתָּר. אַבָּיֵי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרָבָא אָמַר: עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר — לָא.
The Gemara limits the dispute further: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an unintentional prohibited act is prohibited, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one’s action is more significant than his intent. Where they disagree is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional prohibited act is permitted. Apparently, Abaye holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rava would say: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion only with regard to a case where it is not possible to avoid the prohibition. However, in a case where it is possible to avoid the prohibition, no, he did not permit one to derive benefit from such a prohibition even unintentionally. This is one version of the dispute.
וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְהָנְהוּ דִּמְזַבְּנֵי כַּנְדֵי: אַשְׁווֹ זְבִינֵי אַכַּנְדַיְכִי, וְאִי לָא — דָּרְשִׁינָא לְכוּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, as Shmuel said to the pot merchants, who would dramatically raise their prices after Passover: Level the prices for your pots. And if you do not bring your prices down, I will teach you that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover. This ruling would lead people to retain their vessels and desist from purchasing new vessels after Passover, and consequently the merchants would lose business.
וְשָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. וְשָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת אֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד בִּמְחִיצָתָן.
Rav Yosef added: And I heard that they were saying in that world: Praiseworthy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand. And I also heard that they were saying: Those executed by the government enjoy such an exalted status that no one can stand in their enclosure.
(וּמַאן) נִינְהוּ? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵירָיו — מִשּׁוּם הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת וְתוּ לָא?! אֶלָּא: הֲרוּגֵי לוֹד.
The Gemara asks: And who are these martyrs that Rav Yosef was referring to? If you say that he was referring to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, who were martyred, this cannot be: Is their elevated status due only to the fact that they were martyred by the Roman government and nothing more? These men were exceptional in their piety and sanctity during their lives as well. Rather, it is referring to the martyrs of Lod, Pappos and Luliyanos, who gave themselves up to be martyred for the sake of the Jewish people. They falsely admitted to killing the king’s daughter in order to prevent a harsh decree from being issued against the entire community. Although they were not known for exceptional piety before that event, they are considered to be extremely holy due to their martyrdom.
רָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״כִּי גָדֹל עַד שָׁמַיִם חַסְדֶּךָ״, וּכְתִיב ״כִּי גָדֹל מֵעַל שָׁמַיִם חַסְדֶּךָ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן בְּעוֹשִׂין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְכָאן בְּעוֹשִׂין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. וְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ.
On the topic of reward for a mitzva fulfilled without intent, Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: “For Your mercy is great unto the heavens, and Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms 57:11); and it is written elsewhere: “For Your mercy is great above the heavens, and Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms 108:5). How so? How can these verses be reconciled? The Gemara explains: Here, where the verse says that God’s mercy is above the heavens, it is referring to a case where one performs a mitzva for its own sake; and here, where the verse says that God’s mercy reaches the heavens, it is referring to a case where one performs a mitzva not for its own sake. Even a mitzva performed with ulterior motives garners reward, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A person should always engage in Torah study and performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for their own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for their own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for their own sake.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמִּשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּקָנִים וּבְקַנְקַנִּים — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דִּנְפִישׁ אַפְחָזַיְיהוּ — שָׁלְטָא בְּהוּ עֵינָא. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תַּגָּרֵי סִימְטָא, וּמְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה, וְקוֹצְצֵי אִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת, וְנוֹתְנִין עֵינֵיהֶן בְּחֵלֶק יָפֶה — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתָהוּ בֵּיהּ אִינָשֵׁי.
The Sages taught with regard to a sign of blessing: One who earns a living from selling rods or jugs will never see a sign of blessing from them. What is the reason for this? Since their volume is great, the evil eye dominates them. People believe that one is selling more than he is actually selling. Similarly, the Sages taught: Merchants who sell their wares in an alleyway [simta] adjacent to a thoroughfare, where they are seen by all; and those who raise small livestock, which tend to damage other people’s fields; and those who chop down good fruit trees, even if they were permitted to do so; and those who direct their eyes to the fine portion with the intention of taking that portion for himself when dividing an item with others, will never see a sign of blessing from them. What is the reason for this? It is that due to these actions people wonder about him and pay special attention to his conduct. Due to that attention, his actions will not be blessed.
וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ גְּדוֹלֵי כְהוּנָּה נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּזְרוֹעַ. עָמְדוּ בְּעָלִים וְהִקְדִּישׁוּם לַשָּׁמַיִם.
Yet still the prominent priests by virtue of their lineage would take them by force. Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, the owners of the sacrifices (Me’iri) arose and consecrated the hides to Heaven so the priests could not take them.
וַעֲדַיִין הָיוּ גְּדוֹלֵי כְהוּנָּה נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּזְרוֹעַ. עָמְדוּ בְּעָלִים וְהִקְדִּישׁוּם לַשָּׁמַיִם.
Yet still the prominent priests by virtue of their lineage would take them by force. Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, the owners of the sacrifices (Me’iri) arose and consecrated the hides to Heaven so the priests could not take them.
אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְזָרוֹזֵי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא בַּסָּם וּבְלֹא בּוּרְסִי. אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁאוּמָּנֻתוֹ בַּסָּם, אוֹי לוֹ מִי שֶׁאוּמָּנֻתוֹ בּוּרְסִי. וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא זְכָרִים וּבְלֹא נְקֵבוֹת. אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁבָּנָיו זְכָרִים, אוֹי לוֹ מִי שֶׁבָּנָיו נְקֵבוֹת.
The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, the members of the third group should have hurried themselves so that they would not be in the last group. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The world cannot function without a perfume merchant or without a tanner [bursi], who processes bad-smelling hides. While both of these occupations are necessary, fortunate is he whose profession is that of a perfume merchant, and woe to him whose profession is that of a tanner. Likewise, the world cannot exist without males or without females; yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמִּתְיַהֵר, אִם חָכָם הוּא — חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ, אִם נָבִיא הוּא — נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם חָכָם הוּא חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מֵהִלֵּל, דְּאָמַר מָר הִתְחִיל מְקַנְטְרָן בִּדְבָרִים, וְקָאָמַר לְהוּ: הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי. אִם נָבִיא הוּא נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מִדְּבוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״חָדְלוּ פְרָזוֹן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חָדֵלּוּ עַד שַׁקַּמְתִּי דְּבוֹרָה שַׁקַּמְתִּי אֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי עוּרִי דְּבוֹרָה עוּרִי עוּרִי דַּבְּרִי שִׁיר וְגוֹ׳״.
With regard to the incident with Hillel, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who acts haughtily, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him; and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him is learned from Hillel, for the Master said in this baraita: Hillel began to rebuke them with words. Because he acted haughtily, he ended up saying to them: I once heard this halakha, but I have forgotten it, as he was punished for his haughtiness by forgetting the law. That if he is a prophet his prophecy departs from him is learned from Deborah, as it is written: “The villagers ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7). For these words of self-glorification, Deborah was punished with a loss of her prophetic spirit, as it is written later that it was necessary to say to her: “Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song” (Judges 5:12), because her prophecy had left her.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁכּוֹעֵס, אִם חָכָם הוּא — חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ, אִם נָבִיא הוּא — נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ. אִם חָכָם הוּא חׇכְמָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מִמֹּשֶׁה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְצוֹף מֹשֶׁה עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְגוֹ׳״, מִכְּלָל דְּמֹשֶׁה אִיעֲלַם מִינֵּיהּ.
Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him. The Gemara explains: That if he is a Torah scholar his wisdom departs from him is learned from Moses, as it is written: “And Moses became angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands and the captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14). And what was his punishment? As it is written afterward: “And Elazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle: This is the statute of the law, which the Lord commanded Moses” (Numbers 31:21), which proves by inference that this law had become hidden from Moses due to his anger.
אִם נָבִיא הוּא נְבוּאָתוֹ מִסְתַּלֶּקֶת מִמֶּנּוּ — מֵאֱלִישָׁע, דִּכְתִיב: ״לוּלֵי פְּנֵי יְהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֲנִי נוֹשֵׂא אִם אַבִּיט אֵלֶיךָ וְאִם אֶרְאֶךָּ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.
And that if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs from him, we learn from Elisha, as it is written that he became angry with the king of Israel and said to him: “Were it not that I have regard for the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” (II Kings 3:14), and it is afterward written: “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). Because Elisha became angry with the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit departed from him and a minstrel was needed to rouse it anew.
אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ: כׇּל שֶׁכּוֹעֵס, אֲפִילּוּ פּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו גְּדוּלָּה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ. מְנָלַן? מֵאֱלִיאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלִיאָב בְּדָוִד וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה [זֶּה] יָרַדְתָּ וְעַל מִי נָטַשְׁתָּ מְעַט הַצֹּאן הָהֵנָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת זְדֹנְךָ וְאֵת רוֹעַ לְבָבֶךָ כִּי לְמַעַן רְאוֹת הַמִּלְחָמָה יָרָדְתָּ״. וְכִי אֲזַל שְׁמוּאֵל לְמִמְשְׁחִינְהוּ, בְּכֻלְּהוּ כְּתִיב: ״לֹא בָּזֶה בָחַר ה׳״, וּבֶאֱלִיאָב כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אַל תַּבֵּיט אֶל מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ״, מִכְּלָל דַּהֲוָה רָחֵים לֵיהּ עַד הָאִידָּנָא.
Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: Whoever becomes angry, even if greatness has been apportioned to him from heaven, he is lowered from his greatness. From where do we derive this? From Eliab, David’s older brother, as it is stated: “And Eliab’s anger burned against David and he said: Why did you come down, and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the evil of your heart, for you have come down to see the battle” (I Samuel 17:28); we see that Eliab became angry. And when Samuel went to anoint him after God had told him that one of Yishai’s sons was to be the king, concerning all of the other brothers it is written: “The Lord has not chosen this one” (I Samuel 16:8), whereas with regard to Eliab it is written: “And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not at his appearance, nor at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him” (I Samuel 16:7). This proves by inference that until now He had loved him, and it was only at this point that Eliab was rejected. Had it not been for his anger, Eliab would have been fit for greatness; but owing to this shortcoming, God rejected him.
אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא: שֶׁמּוֹצִיאוֹ מִידֵי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי.
Rav Avira said: Even here he has improved it in that he removed it from the category of limbs from a living creature. Even a gentile is liable if he eats meat taken from a living animal, but once the animal is slaughtered there is no longer any liability. Accordingly, even this act of slaughter has achieved a productive result.
וְנַעְבֵּיד לַהּ חַמֵּי הָאוּר? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death. Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ שַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצוֹרָעִין מְגִינִּין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים.
As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: For what reason were the insides of the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers protect themselves by sitting under them; in the sun they protect themselves from the sun and in the rain they sit in the gateway to protect themselves from the rain. Lepers are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. In order to allow them to use the gates of the city as shelter from the elements, the gateways were not sanctified.
״אֲנִי חוֹמָה וְשָׁדַי כַּמִּגְדָּלוֹת״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אֲנִי חוֹמָה״ — זוֹ תּוֹרָה, ״וְשָׁדַי כַּמִּגְדָּלוֹת״ — אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. וְרָבָא אָמַר: ״אֲנִי חוֹמָה״ — זוֹ כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״וְשָׁדַי כַּמִּגְדָּלוֹת״ — אֵלּוּ בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.
The Gemara interprets another verse: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “I am a wall”; this is a reference to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the Torah scholars, who, by disseminating their Torah and influencing the masses protect them like watchtowers. And Rava said: “I am a wall”; this is the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls in which the Congregation of Israel is nurtured by the Torah, from which it draws its spiritual strength.
״אָחוֹת לָנוּ קְטַנָּה וְשָׁדַיִם אֵין לָהּ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ עֵילָם, שֶׁזָּכְתָה לִלְמוֹד, וְלֹא זָכְתָה לְלַמֵּד.
Apropos the verse from Song of Songs cited previously, the Gemara homiletically interprets an adjacent verse: “We have a little sister, and she has no breasts” (Song of Songs 8:8). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is an allusion to the Jewish community of Eilam, which was privileged to study Torah and become Torah scholars, but was not privileged to teach and influence the masses.
״אֲשֶׁר בָּנֵינוּ כִּנְטִעִים״ — אֵלּוּ בַּחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא. ״בְּנוֹתֵינוּ כְזָוִיֹּת״ — אֵלּוּ בְּתוּלוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאוֹגְדוֹת פִּתְחֵיהֶן לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּמָלְאוּ כַּמִּזְרָק כְּזָוִיֹּת מִזְבֵּחַ״, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״מְזָוֵינוּ מְלֵאִים מְפִיקִים מִזַּן אֶל זַן״,
The Gemara interprets each phrase of this verse: “We whose sons are as plants” indicates they are healthy and undamaged; these are the young men of Israel who have not tasted the taste of sin. “Whose daughters are as corner pillars” indicates that they are filled and sealed; these are the virgins of Israel, who bind and seal their openings exclusively for their husbands. And similarly, another verse demonstrates that a corner refers to something full: It is stated: “And they shall be filled like the basins, like the corners of the altar” (Zechariah 9:15). If you wish, say an alternative support for this idea from here: “Our corners are full, affording all manner of store” (Psalms 144:13).
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹי לָהּ לָרַבָּנוּת שֶׁמְּקַבֶּרֶת אֶת בְּעָלֶיהָ. שֶׁאֵין לָךְ כׇּל נָבִיא וְנָבִיא שֶׁלֹּא קִיפֵּחַ אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים בְּיָמָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ אֲשֶׁר חָזָה עַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Woe to authority, which shortens the life and buries its holders. This is evident from the fact that you don’t have any prophet who did not outlast four kings in his lifetime, as the kings’ positions of authority caused them to die young. A prophet outliving four kings is demonstrated in the opening verses of Hosea, and similarly, as it is stated with regard to Isaiah: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judea and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judea” (Isaiah 1:1).
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכָה יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן יוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִמָּנוֹת עִם מַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל לָשׁוֹן הָרַע עַל עָמוֹס.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Due to what reason was the less than righteous Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel, privileged to be counted in the verse together with the righteous kings of Judea? It is due to the fact that he did not accept slander about Amos.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת כַּעְסוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זוֹכֵר אֶת הָרַחֲמִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא אוֹסִיף עוֹד אֲרַחֵם אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״כִּי נָשֹׂא אֶשָּׂא לָהֶם״.
Rabbi Elazar said: Even at the time of the anger of the Holy One, Blessed be He, He remembers the attribute of compassion, as it is stated: “For I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel” (Hosea 1:6). Even when implementing His attribute of justice, God still mentions His attribute of compassion. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said that this is also indicated from here, from the continuation of the verse, which states: “That I should bear them,” indicating that God promised to eventually bear Israel’s sins and pardon them.
אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ דּוֹר שֶׁאָבִיו יְקַלֵּל וְאֶת אִמּוֹ לֹא יְבָרֵךְ — אַל תַּלְשֵׁן עֶבֶד אֶל אֲדוֹנָיו. מְנָלַן — מֵהוֹשֵׁעַ.
Rather, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize that even in a wicked generation that curses its father and does not bless its mother, one should not slander a servant to his master. From where do we derive this? From Hosea, whose criticism of the Jewish people, God’s servants, to God, their master, aroused His ire, despite the fact that it was a wicked generation.
וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּרָבָא אַפְּקִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתַּזַּק רָבָא בַּר לֵיוַאי, לָא חַשׁ לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא, דְּאָמַר: הָהוּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאוֹתְבַן בְּפִירְקָא הֲוָה.
And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava allowed the Sages to leave after having drunk four cups and was not concerned for their safety. Although Rava bar Livai was injured on one such occasion, Rava was not concerned that the matter had been caused by his consumption of an even number of cups, as he said: That injury occurred because Rava bar Livai challenged me during the public lecture. It is improper for a student to raise difficulties against his rabbi during a public lecture, lest the rabbi be embarrassed by his inability to answer.
מִצְוָה וְגוּף גָּדוֹל — אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא שָׂכָר. מִצְוָה וְגוּף טָהוֹר — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה וְלוֹ בָּנִים.
Rabbi Akiva continued to offer instruction: It is a mitzva and a great material benefit to one’s body to eat fruits without payment. That is, when one lends money and takes land as collateral, deducting from the loan the value of the fruit he eats, both the borrower and the lender benefit from this practice. One who both performs a mitzva and retains a pure body is one who marries a woman, as his thoughts will remain pure and he will merit to have children.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: הֲפוֹךְ בִּנְבֵילְתָּא וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ בְּמִילֵּי. פְּשׁוֹט נְבֵילְתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא וּשְׁקֵיל אַגְרָא, וְלָא תֵּימָא ״כָּהֲנָא אֲנָא, וְגַבְרָא רַבָּא אֲנָא, וְסַנְיָא בִּי מִלְּתָא״. סָלְקַתְּ לְאִיגָּרָא — שֵׁירוּתָךְ בַּהֲדָךְ. מְאָה קָרֵי בְּמָתָא בְּזוּזָא — תּוּתֵי כַּנְפָיךְ נִיהְווֹ.
Rav said to Rav Kahana: It is better for one to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If you ascend to the roof, carry your food with you. One should always carry his sustenance with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If one hundred pumpkins in the city cost a zuz, place them carefully under the corners of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִנּוֹחֲלֵי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַדָּר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַמְגַדֵּל בָּנָיו לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וְהַמַּבְדִּיל עַל הַיַּיִן בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת. מַאי הִיא? דִּמְשַׁיַּיר מִקִּידּוּשָׁא לְאַבְדָּלְתָּא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three people are among those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons to engage in Torah study; and one who recites havdala over wine at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the special importance of that mitzva, to recite havdala over wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, who nevertheless leaves some of his kiddush wine for havdala.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שְׁלֹשָׁה מַכְרִיז עֲלֵיהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכׇל יוֹם: עַל רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא, וְעַל עָנִי הַמַּחֲזִיר אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ, וְעַל עָשִׁיר הַמְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו בְּצִינְעָה. רַב סָפְרָא רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ הֲוָה,
Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about the goodness of three kinds of people every day, as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin with women; about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners despite his poverty; and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שְׁלֹשָׁה מַכְרִיז עֲלֵיהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכׇל יוֹם: עַל רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא, וְעַל עָנִי הַמַּחֲזִיר אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ, וְעַל עָשִׁיר הַמְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו בְּצִינְעָה. רַב סָפְרָא רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ הֲוָה,
Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about the goodness of three kinds of people every day, as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin with women; about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners despite his poverty; and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא, צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו דְּרַב סָפְרָא. אָמַר לוֹ רָבָא: לָאו כְּגוֹן מָר, אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן רַב חֲנִינָא וְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא דַּהֲווֹ אוּשְׁכָּפֵי בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַהֲווֹ יָתְבִי בְּשׁוּקָא דְזוֹנוֹת, וְעָבְדִי לְהוּ מְסָאנֵי לְזוֹנוֹת, וְעָיְילִי לְהוּ. אִינְהוּ מִסְתַּכְּלִי בְּהוּ, וְאִינְהוּ לָא מַדְלָן עֵינַיְיהוּ לְאִיסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בְּהוּ. וּמוֹמָתַיְיהוּ הָכִי: בְּחַיֵּיהֶן רַבָּנַן קַדִּישֵׁי דִּבְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.
שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹהֲבָן: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כּוֹעֵס, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּכֵּר, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲמִיד עַל מִדּוֹתָיו. שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָן: הַמְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב, וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ, וְהָרוֹאֶה דְּבַר עֶרְוָה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּמֵעִיד בּוֹ יְחִידִי.
The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.
שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹהֲבָן: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כּוֹעֵס, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּכֵּר, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲמִיד עַל מִדּוֹתָיו. שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָן: הַמְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב, וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ, וְהָרוֹאֶה דְּבַר עֶרְוָה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּמֵעִיד בּוֹ יְחִידִי.
The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.
אַרְבָּעָה אֵין הַדַּעַת סוֹבַלְתָּן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: דַּל גֵּאֶה, וְעָשִׁיר מְכַחֵשׁ, וְזָקֵן מְנָאֵף, וּפַרְנָס מִתְגָּאֶה עַל הַצִּיבּוּר בְּחִנָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּמַחְזִירָהּ.
Four types of people cannot be endured by anyone: An arrogant pauper; a wealthy person who denies monetary claims against him; a lecherous old man; and a leader who lords over the community for no cause. And some say: Also one who divorces his wife once and twice and takes her back a third time. He should decide definitively whether or not he wants her.
שִׁבְעָה מְנוּדִּין לַשָּׁמַיִם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: (יְהוּדִי) [מִי] שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵין מְגַדְּלָן לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְּפִילִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּתְפִילִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ וְצִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ וּמְזוּזָה בְּפִתְחוֹ, וְהַמּוֹנֵעַ מִנְעָלִים מֵרַגְלָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁאֵין מֵיסֵב בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה.
Seven are ostracized by Heaven, despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to engage in Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm, and ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group that is partaking of a feast in celebration of a mitzva.
וּמִנַּיִין הַיּוֹדֵעַ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּדָבָר אֶחָד, שֶׁחַיָּיב לִנְהוֹג בּוֹ כָּבוֹד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל קֳבֵל דִּי רוּחַ יַתִּירָא בֵּיהּ [וּמַלְכָּא עֲשִׁית לַהֲקָמוּתֵיהּ עַל כׇּל מַלְכוּתָא]״.
And from where is it derived concerning one who knows about another that he is greater than him, even in one matter, that he must treat him with respect? As it is stated: “Because a surpassing spirit was in him, the king thought to set him over the whole realm” (Daniel 6:4). This verse teaches that one who is in any way greater than another person is worthy of his respect.
וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: כׇּל הַמְסַפֵּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְכׇל הַמְקַבֵּל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְכׇל הַמֵּעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר בַּחֲבֵירוֹ — רָאוּי לְהַשְׁלִיכוֹ לִכְלָבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא״, וּקְרִי בֵּיהּ: ״לֹא תַּשִּׂיא״.
And Rav Sheshet further said, citing Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Anyone who speaks slander, and anyone who accepts and believes the slander he hears, and anyone who testifies falsely about another, it is fitting to throw him to the dogs, as it is stated: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field, you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30), and afterward it is written: “You shall not utter [tisa] a false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exodus 23:1). Uttering rumors is here equated to delivering false testimony. Furthermore, read into the verse as though it stated: Do not cause a false report to be accepted [tasi], i.e., do not lead others to accept your false reports.
רִבִּי יוּסְטָא בַּר שׁוּנֵם בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֹא נִמְצָא מְטַמֵּא טַהֲרוֹת לְמַפְרֵעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מוטָּב שֶׁיִּתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְשָׁעָה וְאַל יִתְקַלְקְלוּ בוֹ לְעוֹלָם.
Rabbi Yusta bar Shunem wondered in the presence of Rabbi Mana: And doesn’t he thereby render pure items ritually impure retroactively? If the flesh is not marked at all, pure items might pass over the spot before the flesh has decayed, rendering them ritually impure. He said to him: It is preferable that people are harmed by it temporarily, while the flesh is still there, and are not harmed by it permanently, by wrongly thinking that their pure foods contracted ritual impurity from this source.
וְהָיְה דָּוִד אֹמֵר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִתְכַּווְנִין לְהַכְעִיסֵנִי יָבֹאוּ עָלַי אִם לֹא שָׂמַחְתִּי בְדִבְרֵיהֶם. דִּכְתִיב שָׂ֭מַחְתִּי בְּאֹמְרִ֣ים לִי֑ בֵּי֭ת יְהֹוָ֣ה נֵלֵֽךְ׃ יְהָיָה כִּ֣י ׀ יִמְלְא֣וּ יָמֶ֗יךָ וְשָֽׁכַבְתָּ֙ עִם אֲבֹתֶ֔יךָ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד. יָמִים שְׁלֵמִים אֲנִי מוֹנֶה לְךָ וְלא̈ יָמִים חֲסֵרִים. כְּלוּם שְׁלֹמֹה בִנְךָ יִבְנֶה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר. חָבִיב עָלַי צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִן הַקָּרְבַּן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֲ֭שֶֹׂה צְדָקָ֣ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט נִבְחָר֭ לַֽה׳ מִזָּֽבַח:]
And David would respond with a kind of oath: Even though they intend to anger me, may evil come upon me if I do not rejoice in their words, as I too want the Temple to be built soon, even if it means that I must leave this world before my time, as it is written: “I rejoiced when they said to me: Let us go to the House of the Lord” (Psalms 122:1). When David said this, God answered him: “When your days are fulfilled and you will sleep with your fathers” (II Samuel 7:12). This verse indicates that this is what the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to David: I reckon full days for you and not deficient days, i.e., I will not deduct any days from your life. Won’t Solomon, your son, build the Temple only in order to sacrifice communal offerings? The righteousness and justice that you perform are more pleasant to me than offerings, as it is stated: “To perform righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” (Proverbs 21:3).
[וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי פִינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר אוֹמֵר. זְרִיזוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי נְקִיּוּת. נְקִיּוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי טַהֳרָה. טַהֳרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קְדוּשָּׁה. קְדוּשָּׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲנָוָה.
§ Since the previous mishna deals with the obligation to be guiltless even in the eyes of men and this mishna speaks of the alacrity displayed by the members of the house of Rabban Gamliel when they gave their shekels, the Gemara brings a baraita dealing with worthy traits, including the trait of alacrity: And so Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair would say: Alacrity in the proper performance of the mitzvot leads to cleanliness of the soul, so that one will not sin. Cleanliness of the soul and refraining from all sin leads to purity, so that one purifies his soul from his previous sins. Purity leads to holiness. Holiness leads to humility, as one recognizes his lowliness.
עֲנָוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא. יִרְאַת חֵטְא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חֲסִידוּת. חֲסִידוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ. רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ מֵבִיא לִידֵי תְחִײַת הַמֵּתִים. תְּחִײַת הַמֵּתִים מְבִיאָה לִידֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב.
Humility leads to fear of sin, because when one recognizes his inferiority, he becomes more fearful of sin and is careful to avoid temptation. Fear of sin leads to piety, as one begins to impose upon himself stringencies beyond the letter of the law. Piety leads to the holy spirit, because when one acts in a manner that goes beyond the letter of the law, Heaven acts with him in a way that is not natural to man, and informs him of the secrets of the Torah through divine inspiration. The holy spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, because the spirit of holiness and purity that descend upon him enter the bones of the deceased and resurrect them. The resurrection of the dead that will precede the arrival of the Messiah leads to the coming of the Prophet Elijah, of blessed memory, who will herald the upcoming redemption.
זְרִיזוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי נְקִיּוּת. דִּכְתִיב וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר. נְקִיּוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי טַהֳרָה. דִּכְתִיב וְכִפֶּ֥ר עָלֶי֛הָ הַכֹּהֵן֭ וְטָהֵֽרָה.
The Gemara adduces proof texts for each of the previous statements: Alacrity leads to cleanliness of the soul, as it is written: “And when he has made an end of atoning” (Leviticus 16:20). “He has made an end” denotes alacrity; since one hastens to bring the process to conclusion, he achieves atonement, which cleanses the souls of sinners of their iniquities. Cleanliness leads to purity, as it is written with regard to the offering that a woman brings after her days of impurity and purity that follow childbirth (Leviticus 12): “And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be pure” (Leviticus 12:8). Once she finishes the process of her atonement, that is to say, once she cleanses herself of sin, she reaches purity.
טְהֳרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קְדוּשָּׁה. דִּכְתִיב וְטִיהֲהָּוֹ וְקִידְּשָׁהּ. קְדוּשָּׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲנָוָה. דִּכְתִיב כִּי֩ כֹ֨ה אמַ֜ר רָ֣ם וְנִישָּׂא שֹׁכֵ֥ן עַד֙ וְקָד֣וֹשׁ שְׁמ֔וֹ מָר֥וֹם … וְאֶת־דַּכָּא֙ וּשְׁפַל־ר֔וּחַ.
Purity leads to holiness, as it is written with regard to the High Priest’s sprinkling of the blood of his bull and goat offerings on the golden altar on Yom Kippur: “And he shall purify it, and hallow it” (Leviticus 16:19), teaching that purity is followed by holiness. Holiness leads to humility, as it is written: “For thus says the High and Lofty One that inhabits eternity, Whose name is Holy: I dwell on high and in a holy place, yet with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isaiah 57:15). God’s holiness is drawn to a contrite and humble spirit.
עֲנָוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא. דִּכְתִיב עֲ֭נָוָה יִרְאַ֣ת ה׳. יִרְאַת חֵטְא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חֲסִידוּת. דִּכְתִיב וְחֶ֤סֶד ה׳ מֵעוֹלָ֣ם וְעַד־ע֭וֹלָם עַל־יְרֵאָ֑יו.
Humility leads to fear of sin, as it is written: “The reward of humility is the fear of the Lord” (Proverbs 22:4). Fear of sin leads to piety, as it is written: “But the loving-kindness [ḥesed] of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear Him” (Psalms 103:17). The recognition of God’s loving-kindness indicates piety [ḥasidut], which results from fear of God.
חֲסִידוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ. דִּכְתִיב אָ֤ז דִּבַּ֪רְתָּֽ־בְחָ֡זוֹן לַֽחֲסִידֶ֗יךָ. רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מֵבִיא לִידֵי תְחִײַת הַמֵּתִים. דִּכְתִיב וְנָֽתַתִּ֨י רוּחִ֤י בָכֶם֙ וִֽחְיִיתֶ֔ם. תְּחִײַת הַמֵּתִים מְבִיאָה לִידֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב. דִּכְתֵיב אָ֗ז תָּ֭בִין יִרְאַ֣ת ה׳ וְדַעַ֭ת עֶלְיוֹן תִּמְצָֽא׃
Piety leads to the holy spirit, as it is written: “Then You spoke in vision to Your pious ones” (Psalms 89:20). The holy spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “And I shall put My spirit in you, and you shall live” (Ezekiel 37:14). The resurrection of the dead leads to the coming of the Prophet Elijah, of blessed memory, as it is written: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Malachi 3:23). The day referred to here is the day of the resurrection of the dead.
תַּאנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. כָּל־מִי שֶׁקָּבוּעַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְדַבֵּר לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתָיו בּטָהָרָה וְקוֹרֵא קִרְיַת שְׁמַע בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב יְהֵא מְבוּשָּׂר שֶׁבֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הוּא]
The Gemara concludes the chapter with a different discussion of virtues: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Anyone who lives permanently in Eretz Yisrael, and speaks the holy tongue, and eats the fruits of Eretz Yisrael in purity, and recites Shema in the morning and in the evening, will receive the tidings and assurances that he is one who has merited of the World-to-Come.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אַשְׁרֵי נוֹתֵן לַדָּל אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא אַ֭שְׁרֵי מַשְׂכִּ֣יל אֶל־דָּ֑ל. זֶה שֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּכֵּל בַּמִּצְוָה הֵיאַךְ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ.
Rabbi Yona said: Happy is he who gives to the poor, is not written here; rather: “Happy is he who considers the poor” (Psalms 41:2) is written, which indicates that one must consider his actions carefully and act wisely in giving charity. This is referring to one who scrutinizes the mitzva of charity and considers how to perform it in the most appropriate manner to avoid embarrassing the poor.
כֵּיצַד הָיָה רִבִּי יוֹנָה עוֹשֶׂה. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רוֹאֶה בֶן טוֹבִים שֶׁיָּרַד מִנְּכָסָיו הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ. בְּנִי. בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁנָּֽפְלָה לָךְ יְרוּשָׁה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. טוֹל וְאַתְּ פּוֹרֵעַ. מִן דַּהֲיָה נְסִיב הֲוָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מַתָּנָה.
How would Rabbi Yona himself behave when he would see a poor person of noble descent, who was once wealthy but had lost his assets? Rabbi Yona wanted to assist him but feared he would be too ashamed to accept charity. He would say to him: My son, since I heard that you have come into an inheritance in another place, take this money now and you can pay it back when you receive the inheritance. When the poor person would take the money from him he would tell him: This money is a gift to you, and you do not have to repay it.
סְלִיק לְגַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִי לִי שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹאֶה אוֹתָךְ כֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִי לִי שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה אוֹתָךְ כֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ מְקַלְלֵינִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּמָה אַתְּ מְבָעֵט בַּיִּיסוּרִין.
Rabbi Akiva, Naḥum’s disciple, came to visit and console him. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Woe is me, that I see you like this. Naḥum said to him: Woe is me, that I do not see you like this. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Why do you curse me? Naḥum said to him: And why do you reject suffering? You should not do so, as the Sages have said that suffering atones for sins like the sacrifice of offerings (Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael).
אַמַר לֵיהּ. אַתָּה פִּײַסְתָּה לְמָאן דְּמִיתְחֲמֵי וְלָא חֲמִי. דֵּין דַּחֲמִי וְלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי יְקַבֵּל פִּיּוּסָךְ. אַמַר לֵיהּ. הָדָא מְנָא לָךְ. אַמַר לֵיהּ. מֵרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.
The blind man said to him: Since you appeased one who is seen but does not see, that Holy One, Who sees but is not seen, should accept your appeasement, i.e., God should accept your prayers. Rabbi Hoshaya said to him: From where did you hear that metaphorical statement? The blind man replied: I learned that idea from a story involving Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and a blind man.
אֲמַר לוֹן. מָהוּ הָכֵין. אָֽמְרוֹן לֵיהּ. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב יְתִיב לְרַע מִינָּךְ. וּצְלוֹי עֲלוֹי הָדָא צְלוּתָא. אַתָּה גָמַלְתָּה חֶסֶד לְמָאן דְּמִיתְחֲמֵי וְלָא חֲמִי. דֵּין דַּחֲמִי וְלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי יִגְמוֹל יָתָךְ חֶסֶד.
The blind man asked them: What is this situation? Why are you paying me such a high salary? They said to him: Since Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov sat below you, we honor you. And the blind man prayed this prayer with regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: You rendered kindness to one who is seen but does not see. Therefore, that Holy One, Who sees but is not seen, should render kindness to you.
[דְּ]רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב עָאַל חַד דְּסַגִּי נְהוּרָה לְקַרְתֵּיהּ. יְתַב לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַע מִינֵּיהּ. דְּיֵימְרוּן דְּאִילוּלֵי דְּהוּא בַּר נַשָּׁא רַבָּא לָא יְתַב לֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב לְרַע מִינֵּיהּ. עַבְדּוּן לֵיהּ פַּרְנָסָה דְאִיקָר.
As it is told of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov that a blind man once came to his city, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov sat below him, so that the people of the city would say that if he, i.e., the blind man, were not a great man, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov would not have sat below him. When the people of the city saw this, they gave the blind man a very respectable livelihood.
דְּלֹמָא. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה ורִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה הֲווּן מְטַייְלִין בְּאִילֵּין כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּלוֹד. אָמַר רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה לְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כַּמָּה מָמוֹן שִׁיקְּעוּ אֲבוֹתַײ כָאן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כַּמָּה נְפָשׁוֹת שִׁיקְּעוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ כָאן. לָא הֲווָה אִית בְּנֵי נַשׁ דְּיִלְעוּן בְּאוּרַיְתָא. רִבִּי אָבוּן עֲבַד אִילֵּין תַּרְעַייָה [דף טו:] דְּסִידְרָא רַבָּא. אֲתָא רִבִּי מָנָא לְגַבֵּיהּ. אַמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמִי מָה עַבְדִּית. אַמַר לֵיהּ. וַיִּשְׁכַּ֨ח יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־עֹשֵׂ֗הוּ וַיִּ֨בֶן֙ הֵֽיכָל֔וֹת. לָא הֲוָה בְּנֵי נַשׁ דְּיִלְעוּן בְּאוֹרַיְתָא.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaya were once touring the synagogues of Lod. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said to Rabbi Hoshaya: How much money my forefathers invested in building synagogues here! Rabbi Hoshaya said to him: How many souls your forefathers invested in building synagogues here! The money they spent actually harmed people spiritually rather than helping them. Rabbi Hoshaya explained his comment: Weren’t there people who would have exerted themselves in the study of Torah if only the money used for the construction of these buildings had been donated to them instead? In another case, Rabbi Avun donated money for building the gates [15b] of the great study hall. When Rabbi Mana came to visit him, Rabbi Avun, proud of his donation for this building, said to him: Look at what I did and the greatness of my contribution. Rabbi Mana said to him: Your attitude reminds me of the verse: “For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces” (Hosea 8:14). How could you focus upon the gates? Weren’t there people who would have exerted themselves in the study of Torah if they only had the money? You could have given them that money instead of using it to build structures.
וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר. וְלִתְשׁוּבַ֣ת הַשָּׁנָ֗ה שָׁלַח֙ הַמֶּ֣לֶךְ נְבֽוּכַדְנֶצַּר וַיְבִיאֵהוּ בָבֶ֔לָה עִם־כְּלֵי֖ חֶמְדַּ֣ת בֵּֽית־יְי. אֵי זֶהוּ חֶמְדַּ֣ת בֵּֽית־יְי. זֶה הָאָרוֹן.
And, so too, it says: “And at the return of the year, King Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the desired vessels of the House of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem” (II Chronicles 36:10). What is referred to by the phrase “the desired vessels of the House of the Lord”? This is the Ark, in which the Tablets of the Law were placed. The Torah is a desirable object for the Jews, as it is stated, “More to be desired are they than gold, indeed, than much fine gold” (Psalms 19:11).
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.
The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.
In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Naḥman rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.
מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן מִפְּנֵי מָה חָרַב — מִפְּנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי קָצַר הַמַּצָּע מֵהִשְׂתָּרֵעַ״.
§ The Tosefta continues with a discussion of the sins of the Jewish people over the generations: Due to what reason was the First Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there were three matters that existed in the First Temple: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Idol worship, as it is written: “The bed is too short for stretching [mehistare’a], and the cover is too narrow for gathering” (Isaiah 28:20).
גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ יַעַן כִּי גָבְהוּ בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן וַתֵּלַכְנָה נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם הָלוֹךְ וְטָפוֹף תֵּלַכְנָה וּבְרַגְלֵיהֶן תְּעַכַּסְנָה״. ״יַעַן כִּי גָּבְהוּ בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת אֲרוּכָּה בְּצַד קְצָרָה. ״וַתֵּלַכְנָה נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה. ״וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינַיִם״ — דַּהֲווֹ מָלְיָין כּוּחְלָא עֵינֵיהֶן. ״הָלוֹךְ וְטָפוֹף תֵּלַכְנָה״ — שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכוֹת עָקֵב בְּצַד גּוּדָל. ״וּבְרַגְלֵיהֶן תְּעַכַּסְנָה״ — אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שֶׁהָיוּ מְבִיאוֹת מוֹר וַאֲפַרְסְמוֹן וּמַנִּיחוֹת בְּמִנְעֲלֵיהֶן, וּכְשֶׁמַּגִּיעוֹת אֵצֶל בַּחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בּוֹעֲטוֹת וּמַתִּיזוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמַכְנִיסִין בָּהֶן יֵצֶר הָרָע כְּאֶרֶס בְּכָעוּס.
With regard to forbidden sexual relations, it is written: “The Lord says because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go and making a tinkling with their feet” (Isaiah 3:16).
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, indicates a tall woman walking alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out.
And walk with outstretched necks, indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way.
And wanton eyes, indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow in order to draw attention to their eyes.
Walking and mincing as they go, indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
Making a tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This teaches that they would bring myrrh and balsam and place them in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where young Jewish men were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke’eres bikhos].
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, indicates a tall woman walking alongside a short one so that the tall woman would stand out.
And walk with outstretched necks, indicates that they would walk with upright stature and carry themselves in an immodest way.
And wanton eyes, indicates that they would fill their eyes with blue eye shadow in order to draw attention to their eyes.
Walking and mincing as they go, indicates that they would walk in small steps, heel to toe, so onlookers would notice them.
Making a tinkling [te’akasna] with their feet, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This teaches that they would bring myrrh and balsam and place them in their shoes and would walk in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. And once they approached a place where young Jewish men were congregated, they would stamp their feet on the ground and splash the perfume toward them and instill the evil inclination into them like venom of a viper [ke’eres bikhos].
אֲבָל מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹסְקִין בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, מִפְּנֵי מָה חָרַב? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה בּוֹ שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁשְּׁקוּלָה שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם כְּנֶגֶד שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.
However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה עֲוֹנָם — נִתְגַּלָּה קִצָּם. אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּלָּה עֲוֹנָם — לֹא נִתְגַּלָּה קִצָּם.
§ It was Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar who both said: In the case of the former, the people in the First Temple era, whose sin was exposed and no attempt was made to disguise their conduct, the end of their punishment was exposed, and the prophet informed them that they would return to their land in seventy years. In the case of the latter, the people in the Second Temple era, whose sin was not exposed; rather, they attempted to disguise their conduct, the end of their punishment was not exposed.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחוּזַּתְכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״לוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? מִי שֶׁמְּיַיחֵד בֵּיתוֹ לוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁאִיל כֵּלָיו וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְפַרְסְמוֹ כְּשֶׁמְּפַנֶּה אֶת בֵּיתוֹ. פְּרָט לְמַשְׁאִיל כֵּלָיו לַאֲחֵרִים.
And say it is indeed so that a woman’s house and a jointly owned house are excluded from the impurity of leprosy. The Gemara responds that the verse states: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). The word your is written in the plural form to teach that all houses in Eretz Yisrael are subject to this impurity. The Gemara asks: Rather, why do I need the emphasis of the term: His, if every house is subject to the impurity of leprosy? The Gemara answers that the term does not teach a halakha but reveals why a house might be afflicted with leprosy. The house belonging to one who dedicates his house to himself alone, who refuses to lend his vessels to others and says that he does not have them, will be punished. The Holy One, Blessed be He, publicizes his possessions for all to see when he is forced to empty them from his house due to leprosy. This excludes one who lends his vessels to others; his house is not afflicted with leprosy.
הוּא פּוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין וְכוּ׳. הוּא פּוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה — שֶׁחֲשָׁדוּהוּ צַדּוּקִי, וְהֵם פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין — דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַחוֹשֵׁד בִּכְשֵׁרִים לוֹקֶה בְּגוּפוֹ.
§ The mishna continues: After this oath, he would leave them and cry and they would leave him and cry. The Gemara explains: He turned aside and cried due to the indignity that they suspected him of being a Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocent of indiscretion is afflicted in his body. The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.
כִּי הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא וּמְפָרֵישְׁנָא: מַאי ״קְרִיאַת הַגֶּבֶר״ — קְרָא גַּבְרָא, וְלָא אֲמַר לִי וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי, אֵימָא: ״קְרָא תַּרְנְגוֹלָא״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר נִיהוּ רַב? נִינַח מָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״אִיתְּגַרְתְּ — לֵיהּ פּוּץ עַמְרֵיהּ״. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין״.
When I stood before Rabbi Ḥiyya and interpreted: What is the meaning of keriat hagever? It means the call of the man, he did not say anything to me in response, and you, Rabbi Sheila, say to me: Say it is the call of the rooster. As soon as Rabbi Sheila heard that, he knew at once who had been disseminating his lecture. He said to him: Is the Master Rav? Let the Master rest and cease disseminating my lecture, as it is beneath your dignity to serve as my assistant. Rav said to him: People say this aphorism: If you hired yourself to him, comb his wool. Once one agrees to perform a task, he should bear its less pleasing aspects and complete the job. Some say, this is what Rav said to him: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the task of interpreting was undertaken by a man of my stature, it is not fitting that a lesser man will replace me. That would be a display of contempt for the Torah.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַגְרִיפַּס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְשָׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּשָׁלֹשׁ פַּרְסָאוֹת, וּכְשֶׁבָּא לְבֵיתוֹ שִׁיגֵּר לוֹ מַתָּנוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשׁוּבָּח מִמֶּנּוּ. דְּאָמַר מָר: וּכְבָר אָמַר ״אָנָא הַשֵּׁם״ וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בִּירִיחוֹ. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִירִיחוֹ עֲשַׂר פַּרְסֵי.
There was an incident involving King Agrippa, who was coming down the road and heard Gevini the Crier’s voice at a distance of three parasangs. And when the king came to his house he sent gifts to him, since he was so impressed with the man’s voice. The Gemara notes: And even so, the voice of the High Priest was stronger and superior to his, as the Master said: And there already was an incident where the High Priest recited, in his confession that accompanied the placing of hands on his bull on Yom Kippur: Please God, and his voice was heard in Jericho. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The distance from Jerusalem to Jericho is ten parasangs.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Any Torah scholar
שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹקֵם וְנוֹטֵר כְּנָחָשׁ — אֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִקּוֹם וְלֹא תִטּוֹר״? הָהוּא, בְּמָמוֹן הוּא דִּכְתִיב, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְקִימָה וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְטִירָה? נְקִימָה — אָמַר לוֹ: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי מַגָּלְךָ, אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ הוּא: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדּוּמְּךָ, אָמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי מַשְׁאִילְךָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאַלְתַּנִי — זוֹ הִיא נְקִימָה.
who does not avenge himself and bear a grudge like a snake when insulted is not considered a Torah scholar at all, as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written explicitly in the Torah: “You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people” (Leviticus 19:18)? The Gemara responds: That prohibition is written with regard to monetary matters and not personal insults, as it was taught in a baraita: What is revenge and what is bearing a grudge? Revenge is illustrated by the following example: One said to his fellow: Lend me your sickle, and he said: No. The next day he, the one who had refused to lend the sickle, said to the other person: Lend me your ax. If he said to him: I will not lend to you, just as you did not lend to me, that is revenge.
וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא נְטִירָה? אָמַר לוֹ: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדּוּמְּךָ, אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא. לְמָחָר אָמַר לוֹ: הַשְׁאִילֵנִי חֲלוּקְךָ! אָמַר לוֹ: הֵילָךְ, אֵינִי כְּמוֹתְךָ שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁאַלְתַּנִי. זוֹ הִיא נְטִירָה.
And what is bearing a grudge? If one said to his fellow: Lend me your ax, and he said: No, and the next day he, the one who had refused to lend the ax, said to the other man: Lend me your robe; if the first one said to him: Here it is, as I am not like you, who would not lend to me, that is bearing a grudge. Although he does not respond to his friend’s inconsiderate behavior in kind, he still makes it known to his friend that he resents his inconsiderate behavior. This baraita shows that the prohibition relates only to monetary matters, such as borrowing and lending.
וְצַעֲרָא דְגוּפָא לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הַנֶּעֱלָבִין וְאֵינָן עוֹלְבִין, שׁוֹמְעִין חֶרְפָּתָן וְאֵינָן מְשִׁיבִין, עוֹשִׂין מֵאַהֲבָה וּשְׂמֵחִין בְּיִסּוּרִין, עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְאוֹהֲבָיו כְּצֵאת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ״!
The Gemara asks: But does the prohibition against vengeance really not relate also to matters of personal anguish suffered by someone? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Those who are insulted but do not insult others, who hear themselves being shamed but do not respond, who act out of love for God, and who remain happy in their suffering, about them the verse states: “They that love Him be as the sun when it goes forth in its might” (Judges 5:31). This baraita shows that one should forgive personal insults as well as wrongs in monetary matters.
לְעוֹלָם דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בְּלִיבֵּיהּ. וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַמַּעֲבִיר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו — מַעֲבִירִין לוֹ עַל כׇּל פְּשָׁעָיו! דִּמְפַיְּיסוּ לֵיהּ וּמִפַּיַּיס.
The Gemara responds that the prohibition against taking vengeance and bearing a grudge indeed applies to cases of personal anguish; however, actually, the scholar may keep resentment in his heart, though he should not act on it or remind the other person of his insulting behavior. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava say: With regard to whoever forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices done to him, the heavenly court in turn forgoes punishment for all his sins? The Gemara answers: Indeed, even a scholar who is insulted must forgive insults, but that is only in cases where his antagonist has sought to appease him, in which case he should allow himself to be appeased toward him. However, if no apology has been offered, the scholar should not forgive him, in order to uphold the honor of the Torah.
אָמַר מָר: ״אֲחֵרִים״ — פְּחוּתִין מֵהֶן, כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּגָדִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶן קְדֵרָה לְרַבּוֹ — לֹא יִמְזוֹג בָּהֶן כּוֹס לְרַבּוֹ.
The Gemara now explains the baraita in detail. The Master said in the baraita: The words: Other garments, teach that they are to be of lower quality than the garments worn during the removal of the ashes. This is in accordance with what was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Clothes worn by a servant as he was cooking food for his master that became soiled in the process should not be worn by him when he pours a cup for his master, which is a task that calls for the servant to present a dignified appearance. Similarly, one who performs the dirtying task of carrying out the ashes should not wear the same fine clothes worn to perform other services.
לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹתֵן אֶת הַפֶּדֶר אַבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּמַעֲלֵהוּ, וְזֶה הוּא דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד שֶׁל מַעְלָה.
what does that come to teach us? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: In what manner would the priest placing the pieces on the altar do so? He would place the fat right over the place of slaughter, that is, on the cut neck, and bring it up that way, and that is the most respectful way toward the Most High, that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁנָה אָדָם בָּהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׁרֶת.
GEMARA: A Sage taught in the Tosefta: No person ever performed the service of the incense twice, as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because it brings wealth to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service.
הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵירָה קָשׁוּ מֵעֲבֵירָה, וְסִימָנָיךְ: רֵיחָא דְבִישְׂרָא. שִׁילְהֵי דְקַיְיטָא קְשֵׁי מִקַּיְיטָא, וְסִימָנָיךְ: תַּנּוּרָא שְׁגִירָא.
Thoughts of transgression are worse than transgression itself, and your mnemonic is the odor of meat. The smell of roasting meat is more appetizing than actually eating the meat. The heat of the end of summer is more oppressive than the heat of the summer itself, and your mnemonic is a heated oven. After an oven has been heated several times in the course of a day, lighting it again, even slightly, will produce powerful heat. So too, at the end of the summer, since everything is hot, the heat is more oppressive.
מוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלוּ תְּפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים כְּאַיֶּלֶת — לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אַיָּלָה זוֹ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּגְדֶּלֶת — קַרְנֶיהָ מַפְצִילוֹת, אַף צַדִּיקִים, כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּרְבִּין בִּתְפִלָּה — תְּפִלָּתָן נִשְׁמַעַת.
The Gemara answers: Actually, Purim was not the conclusion of all miracles performed for the entire Jewish people, and the one who holds that permission was not granted for the Scroll of Esther to be written establishes the analogy between Esther and the hind in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said; as Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as with regard to a hind, as long as it grows its antlers they continue to branch out; so too, with regard to the righteous, as long as they engage more in prayer their prayer is heard.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְצַפֶּה לִשְׂכַר אִשְׁתּוֹ וְרֵיחַיִם — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם. שְׂכַר אִשְׁתּוֹ — מַתְקוּלְתָּא. רִיחְיָיא — אַגְרָתָא. אֲבָל עָבְדָה וּמְזַבְּנָה — אִישְׁתַּבּוֹחֵי מִשְׁתַּבַּח בָּהּ קְרָא דִּכְתִיב: ״סָדִין עָשְׂתָה וַתִּמְכֹּר״.
The Sages taught: One who anticipates receiving the earnings of his wife or of a mill never sees a sign of blessing from them. The Gemara explains: Earnings of his wife is referring to a case where she spins thread for others and charges by weight on a scale (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). The profit is small and it is demeaning to walk in public to solicit customers. Earnings of the mill is referring to a hand mill for which people pay rent and grind their grain. In that case too, the profits are meager. However, if a woman works and sells the product of her labor, the verse praises her, as it is written about a woman of valor: “She made a cloak and sold it, and delivered a belt to the peddler” (Proverbs 31:24).
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַמִּתְפַּתֶּה בְּיֵינוֹ — יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִדַּעַת קוֹנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּרַח ה׳ אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחוֹחַ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion, as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21). As it were, God acted more favorably toward His creatures after He was appeased with the smell of the burnt offerings. Smell can be as potent as drinking or eating itself.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כׇּל הַמִּתְיַישֵּׁב בְּיֵינוֹ — יֵשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת שִׁבְעִים זְקֵנִים. ״יַיִן״ נִיתַּן בְּשִׁבְעִים אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְ״סוֹד״ נִיתַּן בְּשִׁבְעִים אוֹתִיּוֹת. נִכְנַס יַיִן — יָצָא סוֹד.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Anyone who remains settled of mind after drinking wine, and does not become intoxicated, has an element of the mind-set of seventy Elders. The allusion is: Wine [yayin spelled yod, yod, nun] was given in seventy letters, as the numerological value of the letters comprising the word is seventy, as yod equals ten and nun equals fifty. Similarly, the word secret [sod spelled samekh, vav, dalet] was given in seventy letters, as samekh equals sixty, vav equals six, and dalet equals four. Typically, when wine entered the body, a secret emerged. Whoever does not reveal secrets when he drinks is clearly blessed with a firm mind, like that of seventy Elders.
מִצְוָה לְשַׁפְשֵׁף. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיֵּצֵא בְּנִיצוֹצוֹת שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּכְרוּת שׇׁפְכָה, וּמוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנָיו שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים.
it is a mitzva to brush the drops of urine from one’s legs so that they cannot be seen. Since one rubs it with his hands, his hands require sanctification as well. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: It is prohibited for a man to go out with the drops of urine that are on his legs, because he appears as one whose penis has been severed. A man with that condition is incapable of fathering children. People who see urine on his legs might suspect that he is suffering from that condition and spread rumors about his children that they are mamzerim. Therefore, one must be certain to brush the drops of urine from his legs.
וְדִישּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי קוֹדֵם לַהֲטָבַת חָמֵשׁ נֵרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: גְּמָרָא גְּמִירְנָא, סְבָרָא — לָא יָדַעְנָא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת,
Abaye continued: And removal of ashes from the inner altar precedes the removal of ashes from five of the seven lamps of the candelabrum. What is the reason for this? Abaye said: I learned this through tradition; however, I do not know the rationale behind it. And Rava said: The reason is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One may not forego performance of any of the mitzvot in order to perform another mitzva.
הוּגְרַס בֶּן לֵוִי הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ פֶּרֶק בַּשִּׁיר וְלֹא רָצָה לְלַמֵּד, בֶּן קַמְצָר לֹא רָצָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַכְּתָב. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נֶאֱמַר: ״זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה״, וְעַל אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמַר: ״וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב״.
Also, Hugras ben Levi knew a chapter in the art of music, as will be explained, and he did not want to teach it to others. And the scribe ben Kamtzar did not want to teach a special act of writing. He was expert at writing all four letters of a four-letter name simultaneously. About the first ones, who were mentioned favorably, it is stated: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); and about these who were concerned only for themselves it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7).
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ לִגְנַאי: שֶׁל בֵּית גַּרְמוּ לֹא רָצוּ לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁל בֵּית אַבְטִינָס לֹא רָצוּ לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטוֹרֶת.
MISHNA: Apropos the mention in the mishna of people who took action in the Temple and were mentioned favorably, the mishna lists those who took action in the Temple and were mentioned unfavorably. The craftsmen of the House of Garmu did not want to teach the secret of the preparation of the shewbread and sought to keep the secret within their family. The craftsmen of the House of Avtinas did not want to teach the secret of the preparation of the incense.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים: מָה רְאִיתֶם שֶׁלֹּא לְלַמֵּד? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא שֶׁבַּיִת זֶה עָתִיד לֵיחָרֵב, שֶׁמָּא יִלְמוֹד אָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהוּגָּן וְיֵלֵךְ וְיַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּכָךְ. וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לְשֶׁבַח: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא נִמְצֵאת פַּת נְקִיָּה בְּיַד בְּנֵיהֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים זֶה נִיזּוֹנִין, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּים מֵה׳ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״.
The Sages said to them: What did you see that led you not to teach others this craft? They said: The members of our father’s house knew that this house, the Temple, is destined to be destroyed, and they were concerned lest an unworthy man learn our skill of baking and go and engage in idol worship with that skill. Therefore, they attempted to prevent this skill from spreading beyond their family. The Gemara comments: And for this matter they are mentioned favorably: Never was refined bread of fine flour found in the hands of their descendants, so that people would not say that they are sustained from that technique of preparing the shewbread. They ate only bread made of coarse flour mixed with bran, to fulfill that which is stated: “And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22). Not only must one’s behavior be beyond reproach, he should also make certain to be beyond suspicion.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים: מָה רְאִיתֶם שֶׁלֹּא לְלַמֵּד? אָמְרוּ: יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא שֶׁבַּיִת זֶה עָתִיד לֵיחָרֵב, אָמְרוּ: שֶׁמָּא יִלְמוֹד אָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְהוּגָּן וְיֵלֵךְ וְיַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּכָךְ. וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן לְשֶׁבַח: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָצָאת כַּלָּה מְבוּשֶּׂמֶת מִבָּתֵּיהֶן, וּכְשֶׁנּוֹשְׂאִין אִשָּׁה מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מַתְנִין עִמָּהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְבַּסֵּם, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ: מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטוֹרֶת מִתְבַּסְּמִין, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּים מֵה׳ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״.
The Sages said to them: What did you see that led you not to teach others this craft? They said: The members of our father’s house knew that this house, the Temple, is destined to be destroyed, and they were concerned lest an unworthy man learn our skill of preparing incense and go and engage in idol worship with that skill. Therefore, they attempted to prevent this skill from spreading beyond their family. The Gemara comments: And for this matter they are mentioned favorably: Never did a perfumed bride emerge from their homes. And when they marry a woman from a different place, they stipulate with her that she will not perfume herself, so that cynics would not say that it is with the work of the incense that they perfume themselves, to fulfill that which is stated: “And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּן קַמְצָר לֹא רָצָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַכְּתָב. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו שֶׁהָיָה נוֹטֵל אַרְבָּעָה קוּלְמוֹסִין בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וְאִם הָיְתָה תֵּיבָה שֶׁל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת הָיָה כּוֹתְבָהּ בְּבַת אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה רָאִיתָ שֶׁלֹּא לְלַמֵּד? כּוּלָּן מָצְאוּ תְּשׁוּבָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶם, בֶּן קַמְצָר לֹא מָצָא תְּשׁוּבָה לִדְבָרָיו. עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נֶאֱמַר: ״זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה״, וְעַל בֶּן קַמְצָר וַחֲבֵירָיו נֶאֱמַר: ״וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב״.
The Sages taught: Ben Kamtzar did not want to teach others a special technique of writing. What was that technique? They said about him that he would take four quills between his fingers, and if there was a word consisting of four letters that he wanted to write, he could write it simultaneously. They said to him: What did you see that led you not to teach that technique? All the others with unique skills came up with a response to questions about the matter of their conduct, claiming that they sought to prevent their technique from being used in idol worship. However, ben Kamtzar did not come up with a response to questions about the matter of his conduct, and it was clear that his only motivation in preventing his skill from being disseminated was his own personal honor. With regard to the first people listed, it is stated: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); and about ben Kamtzar and his counterparts it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7).
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: צַדִּיק מֵעַצְמוֹ, וְרָשָׁע מֵחֲבֵירוֹ. צַדִּיק מֵעַצְמוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה״, וְרָשָׁע מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב״.
Rabbi Elazar said: A righteous person is praised for his own actions, and a wicked person is cursed not only for his own actions but also for the actions of his wicked counterpart. A righteous person is praised for his actions, as it is written: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing”; righteous is written in the singular. A wicked person is also cursed for the actions of his wicked counterpart, as it is written: “But the name of the wicked shall rot”; wicked is written in the plural. Once one wicked person is mentioned, his wicked counterparts are cursed as well.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר (בַּר) שֵׁילָא, מַאי קְרָא: ״אֱלֹהַי פַּלְּטֵנִי מִיַּד רָשָׁע מִכַּף מְעַוֵּל וְחוֹמֵץ״. רָבָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב דִּרְשׁוּ מִשְׁפָּט אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ״. אׇשְׁרוֹ חָמוֹץ — וְאַל תַּאַשְׁרוּ חוֹמֵץ.
Rabba bar bar Sheila said: What is the verse that indicates that a ḥamtzan is a robber? The verse states: “O, my God, rescue me out of the hand of wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and robbing man [ḥometz]” (Psalms 71:4). Rava said: From here: “Learn to do well, seek justice, strengthen the robbed [ḥamotz]” (Isaiah 1:17), which teaches that one should strengthen the robbed, but not strengthen the robber.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא וְרַבָּנַן בְּפָרָה, חַד אָמַר: מִשְׁקַל עֲשָׂרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: מִשְׁקַל שֶׁקֶל. וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״אֶחָד הַמַּרְבֶּה וְאֶחָד הַמַּמְעִיט״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the strip of crimson of the red heifer. One said: It has the weight of ten zuz. And one said: It has the weight of one shekel. And your mnemonic for remembering that while both assume that only one of the extreme values was required no one suggests the middle value of two sela is required, is the aphorism from a mishna: God equally values both the one who gives much and the one who gives little as long as his intention is to Heaven.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: לָא בְּפָרָה פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ פְּלִיגִי. וְהָהוּא יוֹמָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבְיָא בַּר קִיסִי, וְאַנְּחוּ בַּהּ סִימָנָא: רַבְיָא [בַּר] קִיסִי מְכַפֵּר כְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ.
Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina: It is not with regard to the strip of the red heifer that they disagree; rather, it is with regard to the strip of the scapegoat that they disagree. And on that very day that they disputed this issue, Ravya bar Kisi died, and they made a mnemonic out of it, associating the halakha with his name: The death of Ravya bar Kisi atones like the scapegoat, since the death of the righteous person atones for his generation.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נְהִי דְּלָא יָלֵיף פְּנִים מִחוּץ, אִי בָּעֵי — הָכִי נַעֲבֵיד, אִי בָּעֵי — הָכִי נַעֲבֵיד? אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדִּינָא בְּהָהוּא קֶרֶן דְּפָגַע בְּרֵישָׁא — בְּהָהוּא עָבֵיד בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.
§ The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, although he does not derive the inside from the outside, nevertheless if the High Priest wants, let him perform the rite in this manner, and if he wants, let him perform the rite in that manner. Why must he begin specifically at the southeast corner? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you: Indeed, by right he should begin sprinkling by that corner of the altar that he reaches first, as Reish Lakish said: One does not pass on an opportunity to perform mitzvot. If one has the chance to perform a mitzva, he should not put it off for later but should do it immediately.
רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְשָׁחַט אִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
The Gemara presents another explanation as to why a verse is needed to indicate that the scapegoat may not be lacking time. Rava said: It is referring to a case where the one who sold the two goats had a critically ill person in his household, and he slaughtered the mother of the scapegoat in order to save the ill person’s life on Yom Kippur. Although the scapegoat is more than eight days old, it is considered lacking time because it is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, ״אֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תַּעֲשׂוּ״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא (לֹא) נִכְתְּבוּ דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְגָזֵל, וּבִרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם.
The Gemara cites another baraita related to the scapegoat. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “You shall do My ordinances, and you shall keep My statutes to follow them, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 18:4), that the phrase: My ordinances, is a reference to matters that, even had they not been written, it would have been logical that they be written. They are the prohibitions against idol worship, prohibited sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and blessing God, a euphemism for cursing the Name of God.
וְרַבָּנַן: הֵיכִי עָבְדִי הָכִי וְעָקְרִי תַּקַּנְתָּא דְּתַקֵּין מֹשֶׁה? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין בְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֲמִתִּי הוּא, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא כִּיזְּבוּ בּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, i.e., Jeremiah and Daniel, how could they do this and uproot an ordinance instituted by Moses, the greatest teacher, who instituted the mention of these attributes in prayer? Rabbi Elazar said: They did so because they knew of the Holy One Blessed be He, that He is truthful and hates a lie. Consequently, they did not speak falsely about Him. Since they did not perceive His attributes of might and awesomeness, they did not refer to them; therefore, they cannot be criticized for doing so.
״וּבֶעָשׂוֹר״ שֶׁל חוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קוֹרֵא עַל פֶּה. אַמַּאי? נִגְלוֹל וְנִיקְרֵי! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גּוֹלְלִין סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּצִיבּוּר, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד צִיבּוּר.
§ It was further taught in the mishna: The Torah portion beginning with the verse: “And on the tenth,” from the book of Numbers (29:7), he reads by heart. The Gemara asks: Why does he read it by heart? Let him furl the scroll to that portion and read it from the text. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: It is because one may not furl a Torah scroll in public, out of respect for the community. It is inappropriate to make the community wait until they have reached the next section.
וּמַאי מִצְוָה — ״בְּרׇב עָם הַדְרַת מֶלֶךְ״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara clarifies why this principle might have applied here. And what mitzva is there in hearing the reading of the High Priest? It is a fulfillment of the principle expressed in the verse: “The king’s glory is in the multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28). Having a large assembly involved in a mitzva gives honor to God. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the problem with seeing both events was only a practical one.
לְסוֹף אֲתוֹ שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן לְאִיפְּטוֹרֵי מִינֵּיהּ דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. אָמַר לָהֶן: יֵיתוֹן בְּנֵי עַמְמִין לִשְׁלָם. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: יֵיתוֹן בְּנֵי עַמְמִין לִשְׁלָם דְּעָבְדִין עוֹבָדָא דְאַהֲרֹן, וְלָא יֵיתֵי בַּר אַהֲרֹן לִשְׁלָם דְּלָא עָבֵיד עוֹבָדָא דְאַהֲרֹן.
Eventually, Shemaya and Avtalyon came to take leave of the High Priest before returning to their homes. Envious of the attention they received, he angrily said to them: Let the descendants of the gentile nations come in peace. Shemaya and Avtalyon descended from converts, and he scornfully drew attention to that fact. They said to him: Let the descendants of the gentile nations come in peace, who perform the acts of Aaron, who loved and pursued peace; and let not a descendant of Aaron come in peace, who does not perform the acts of Aaron and who speaks condescendingly to descendants of converts.
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא? רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי: בְּכוֹלֵל דְּבָרִים הַמּוּתָּרִים עִם דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִין.
And we discussed it: Why should he be liable for breaking an oath? He was already sworn and obligated at Mount Sinai, along with the rest of the Jewish people, not to eat these things. According to halakha, an oath does not take effect if it contradicts a previously existing oath. The second oath to not eat has no effect in terms of eating forbidden foods, so why should one be liable for breaking it? Rav, and Shmuel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to this: Here we are dealing with a case where one includes permitted foods with forbidden foods. This means that had one sworn only not to eat unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot and then ate them, he would not be liable for breaking the oath because he was already sworn not to eat those foods. However, if one swore not to eat at all, his oath takes effect on permitted foods. Consequently, if he eats any food he is liable.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד״, וְהַאי לָאו בַּר הַגָּדָה הוּא כְּלָל.
The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: It is different there, in the case of testimony, where the verse states: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn’t do so should be punished. But this person cannot ever give testimony since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one’s ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.
וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה הָאִישׁ לְבוּשׁ הַבַּדִּים אֲשֶׁר הַקֶּסֶת בְּמׇתְנָיו מֵשִׁיב דָּבָר לֵאמֹר עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הוֹצִיאוּ לְגַבְרִיאֵל מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד, וּמַחְיוּהוּ שִׁיתִּין פּוּלְסֵי דְנוּרָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָא עֲבַדְתְּ — לָא עֲבַדְתְּ, אִי עֲבַדְתְּ — אַמַּאי לָא עֲבַדְתְּ כִּדְפַקְּדוּךְ? וְעוֹד: דַּעֲבַדְתְּ, לֵית לָךְ אֵין מְשִׁיבִין עַל הַקַּלְקָלָה?
The Gemara continues. And it is written: “And behold, the man clothed in linen with the slate by his side, reported the matter saying: I have done as You have commanded me” (Ezekiel 9:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: At that moment, they cast out Gabriel from behind the curtain [pargod], where the inner angels reside, and they struck him with sixty blows [pulsei] of fire. They said to him: If you did not do it, you did not do it; if you did do it, why did you not do it according to what you were commanded but deviated from what you were instructed to do? Moreover, after you already did it, do you not have knowledge of the principle: One should not deliver a report about destruction? If one is sent on a mission of destruction, he should not deliver a detailed report of its success but should only hint at it.
אֲמַר: כְּתִיבוּ לִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאַכְּרָגָא. כְּתַבוּ לֵיהּ. כְּתִיבוּ לִי רַבָּנַן בְּאַכְּרָגָא. כְּתַבוּ לֵיהּ. בְּעִידָּנָא דְּבָעוּ לְמִיחְתַּם, עָמַד גַּבְרִיאֵל מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַפַּרְגּוֹד וְאָמַר: ״שָׁוְא לָכֶם מַשְׁכִּימֵי קוּם מְאַחֲרֵי שֶׁבֶת אוֹכְלֵי לֶחֶם הָעֲצָבִים כֵּן יִתֵּן לִידִידוֹ שֵׁנָא״, מַאי ״כֵּן יִתֵּן לִידִידוֹ שֵׁנָא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵלּוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּנַדְּדוֹת שֵׁינָה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְזוֹכוֹת לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְלֹא הִשְׁגִּיחוּ עָלָיו.
The ministering angel of the Persians said: Write for me that the Jews must pay taxes [akarga] to the Persians. They wrote it for him as he asked. He said: Write for me that the Sages must pay taxes. They wrote this for him. When they wanted to sign the documents, Gabriel stood from behind the curtain and said: “It is vain for you who rise early who sit up late to eat the bread of sorrow, for He gives His beloved sleep” (Psalms 127:2). What does “for He gives His beloved sleep” mean? Rav Yitzḥak said: These are the wives of Torah scholars who disturb their sleep in this world by staying up waiting for their husbands, who rise early and return late from learning Torah, and they thereby merit the World-to-Come. Gabriel asked: Is this the reward they deserve, to pay more taxes? They did not listen to Gabriel.
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לְהַאֲכִיל בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, וְגָזְרוּ עָלָיו לְהַאֲכִיל בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם שִׁיבְתָּא.
They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. What is the reason that they also said in general that one must wash his hands before touching food? Abaye said: Due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who resides on hands that have not been washed in the morning.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוּבָּרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה בְּשַׂר קוֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר — תּוֹחֲבִין לָהּ כּוּשׁ בְּרוֹטֶב, וּמַנִּיחִין לָהּ עַל פִּיהָ, אִם נִתְיַישְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ רוֹטֶב עַצְמוֹ, וְאִם נִתְיַישְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ שׁוּמָּן עַצְמוֹ. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ, חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a pregnant woman who smelled consecrated meat or pig meat and craved those specific foods, one inserts a thin reed into the juice of that item and places it on her mouth. If her mind become settled with that, it is well. And if not, one feeds her the gravy itself of that forbidden food. If her mind becomes settled with that, it is well. And if not, one feeds her the fat of the forbidden food itself, as there is no halakha that stands in the way of saving a life except for the prohibitions against idol worship, and forbidden sexual relationships, and bloodshed.
אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁגּוּפוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִמָּמוֹנוֹ — לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ״, וְאִם יֵשׁ לָךְ אָדָם שֶׁמָּמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ — לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״וּבְכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״.
Rather, it is to teach that if there is a person whose body is more beloved to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul.” The verse teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice his life to sanctify God’s name. And if there is a person whose property is more beloved to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might.” Rabbi Eliezer understands the phrase “with all your might” to mean: With all your possessions. Therefore, one must be prepared to forfeit his life rather than be saved through idol worship.
גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים מְנָא לַן — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה״. וְכִי מָה עִנְיָן לָמַדְנוּ מֵרוֹצֵחַ לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה?
§ With regard to the concept that one must surrender his life rather than have forbidden sexual relations or shed blood through murder, from where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated about the rape of a betrothed woman: “For as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, even so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). One might ask: What idea did we learn about a betrothed woman from a murderer? The halakha of a betrothed woman is clear; what new point is learned by comparing it to the halakha of a murderer?
גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים מְנָא לַן — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה״. וְכִי מָה עִנְיָן לָמַדְנוּ מֵרוֹצֵחַ לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה?
§ With regard to the concept that one must surrender his life rather than have forbidden sexual relations or shed blood through murder, from where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated about the rape of a betrothed woman: “For as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, even so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). One might ask: What idea did we learn about a betrothed woman from a murderer? The halakha of a betrothed woman is clear; what new point is learned by comparing it to the halakha of a murderer?
אֶלָּא: הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד, וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מָה נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילָהּ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ — אַף רוֹצֵחַ (כּוּ׳). מָה רוֹצֵחַ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר — אַף נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר.
Rather, this halakha about the murderer, which appears to come to teach about the betrothed woman, is found to actually be the subject of teaching. The inference is as follows: Just as with regard to the betrothed woman, permission is given to save her at the cost of the life of her attacker, so too, the murderer may be saved from committing the crime at the cost of his life, i.e., one may save the victim by killing the attacker. Another teaching is derived in the opposite direction, from the case of murder to the case of rape. Just as the murderer is subject to the halakha of let him be killed, and let him not transgress, i.e., one must even allow himself to be killed rather than take the life of another, so too, a man must surrender his life rather than engage in forbidden sexual relations with a betrothed young woman. By inference, the halakha of let him be killed, and let him not transgress, applies to all forbidden sexual relations.
וְרוֹצֵחַ גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא לַן? סְבָרָא הִיא: דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ (דְּרָבָא), אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לִי מָרֵי דּוּרַאי: קִטְלֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, וְאִי לָא — קָטֵילְנָא לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִקְטְלָךְ וְלָא תִּקְטוֹל. מַאי חָזֵית דִּדְמָא דִּידָךְ סוּמָּק טְפֵי? דִּילְמָא דְּמָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא סוּמָּק טְפֵי!
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the murderer himself, from where do we derive this halakha that he should be killed rather than transgress the prohibition against murder? The Gemara answers: It is derived through reason, as it was told: A certain person came before Rava. He said to Rava: The master of the village where I live said to me: Kill so-and-so, and if you do not do so, I will kill you. What should I do? Rava said to him: Let yourself be killed, and you should not kill. Rava reasoned: What did you see to make you think that your blood is redder and more important than his? Perhaps the blood of that man is redder, and he is more important than you. If so, it is logical that one must not kill another person to save himself.
חוֹלֶה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְּקִיאִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: חוֹלֶה אוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ, וְרוֹפֵא אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ — שׁוֹמְעִין לַחוֹלֶה. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״לֵב יוֹדֵעַ מׇרַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: רוֹפֵא קִים לֵיהּ טְפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
§ It was taught in the mishna: If a person is ill and requires food due to potential danger, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. Rabbi Yannai said: If an ill person says he needs to eat, and a doctor says he does not need to eat, one listens to the ill person. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the verse states: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that the doctor is more certain because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כׇּל דְּבָרֶיךָ אֵינָן אֶלָּא מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה! אָמַר לָהֶם: הִזְקַקְתּוּנִי לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי רַבּוֹתַי. מִיָּמַי לֹא קְדָמַנִי אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְלֹא יָשַׁנְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא הִנַּחְתִּי אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְיָצָאתִי, וְלֹא שַׂחְתִּי שִׂיחַת חוּלִּין, וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי רַבִּי מֵעוֹלָם.
They said to him: Are all the matters that you know only from what you heard? Don’t you say any matters on your own? He said to them: Now you forced me to say a matter that I did not hear from my teachers, as I must describe my character traits and the manner in which I conduct myself. In all my days, no person ever preceded me into the study hall, as I am always first to arrive; and I never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and I never left anyone in the study hall and exited, as I was always last to leave; and I never engaged in idle conversation; rather, I discussed only necessary matters or matters of Torah; and I never said anything that I did not hear from my teacher. That is why he did not answer those questions that his teacher did not address.
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: מִיָּמָיו לֹא שָׂח שִׂיחַת חוּלִּין, וְלֹא הָלַךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלָא תּוֹרָה וּבְלֹא תְּפִילִּין, וְלֹא קְדָמוֹ אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְלֹא יָשַׁן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא הִרְהֵר בִּמְבוֹאוֹת הַמְטוּנָּפוֹת, וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ אָדָם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְיָצָא, וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ אָדָם יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹמֵם אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹנֶה, וְלֹא פָּתַח אָדָם דֶּלֶת לְתַלְמִידָיו, אֶלָּא הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְלֹא אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע מִפִּי רַבּוֹ מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא אָמַר: הִגִּיעַ עֵת לַעֲמוֹד מִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, חוּץ מֵעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, וְעַרְבֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר תַּלְמִידוֹ נוֹהֵג אַחֲרָיו.
Apropos the character traits of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites character traits of his teacher. The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer: In all his days he never engaged in idle conversation; and he never walked four cubits without engaging in Torah study and without donning phylacteries; and no person ever preceded him into the study hall; and he never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and he never contemplated matters of Torah in alleyways filthy with human excrement, as doing so is a display of contempt for the Torah; and he never left anyone in the study hall and exited; and no person ever found him sitting and silent, i.e., inactive; rather, he was always sitting and studying; and only he opened the door for his students, disregarding his own eminent standing; and he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher; and he never said to his students that the time has arrived to arise and leave the study hall except on Passover eves, when they were obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, and Yom Kippur eves, when there is a mitzva to eat and drink abundantly. And Rabbi Eliezer, his student, accustomed himself to model his conduct after his example.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים חַמָּה לוֹקָה: עַל אָב בֵּית דִּין שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵינוֹ נִסְפָּד כַּהֲלָכָה, וְעַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁצָּעֲקָה בָּעִיר וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ לָהּ, וְעַל מִשְׁכַּב זְכוּר, וְעַל שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָן כְּאֶחָד.
The Sages taught that on account of four matters the sun is eclipsed: On account of a president of the court who dies and is not eulogized appropriately, and the eclipse is a type of eulogy by Heaven; on account of a betrothed young woman who screamed in the city that she was being raped and there was no one to rescue her; on account of homosexuality; and on account of two brothers whose blood was spilled as one.
וּבִשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים מְאוֹרוֹת לוֹקִין: עַל כּוֹתְבֵי פְלַסְתֵּר, וְעַל מְעִידֵי עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר, וְעַל מְגַדְּלֵי בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְעַל קוֹצְצֵי אִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת.
And on account of four matters the heavenly lights are eclipsed: On account of forgers of a fraudulent document [pelaster] that is intended to discredit others; on account of testifiers of false testimony; on account of raisers of small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisrael in a settled area; and on account of choppers of good, fruit-producing trees.
וּבִשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים נִכְסֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים נִמְסָרִין לַמַּלְכוּת: עַל מַשְׁהֵי שְׁטָרוֹת פְּרוּעִים, וְעַל מַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית,
And on account of four matters the property of homeowners is delivered to the monarchy as punishment: On account of those keepers of paid promissory notes, who keep these documents instead of tearing them or returning them to the borrowers, as that would allow the lender to collect money with the note a second time; and on account of lenders with interest;
וְעַל שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדָם לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחוּ, וְעַל שֶׁפּוֹסְקִים צְדָקָה בָּרַבִּים וְאֵינָן נוֹתְנִין.
and on account of those who had the ability to reprimand sinners and did not reprimand them; and on account of those who issued a commitment to give charity in public and ultimately do not give the charity to which they committed.
אָמַר רַב: בִּשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים נִכְסֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָּתִּים יוֹצְאִין לְטִמְיוֹן: עַל כּוֹבְשֵׁי שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר, וְעַל עוֹשְׁקֵי שְׂכַר שָׂכִיר, וְעַל שֶׁפּוֹרְקִין עוֹל מֵעַל צַוְּארֵיהֶן וְנוֹתְנִין עַל חַבְרֵיהֶן, וְעַל גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ. וְגַסּוּת הָרוּחַ — כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּן. אֲבָל בַּעֲנָוִים כְּתִיב: ״וַעֲנָוִים יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ וְהִתְעַנְּגוּ עַל רֹב שָׁלוֹם״.
Rav said: On account of four matters the property of homeowners is confiscated by the state treasury [timyon]: On account of those who delay payment of the salary of hired laborers (see Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:15); on account of those who withhold the salary of hired laborers and do not pay at all; and on account of those who throw off the yoke of communal responsibility from their own necks and place that yoke on the necks of their friends; and on account of the arrogance of those who, due to their wealth, exercise power over the community. And the punishment for arrogance is equal to them all. However, with regard to the humble it is written: “The humble will inherit the land and delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (Psalms 37:11).
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת הַחוֹלֶה״. גָּזוּל דּוּמְיָא דְּפִסֵּחַ, מָה פִּסֵּחַ לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא — אַף גָּזוּל לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ וְלָא שְׁנָא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ.
It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ — ״אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ — הָא קַנְיֵיהּ בְּיֵאוּשׁ! אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵירָה.
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. The Merciful One says: “When a person sacrifices from yours an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). The term “from yours” indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However, after the despair of the owner, didn’t the robber acquire the animal with the despair? Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? Rather, is it not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ אוֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״ — מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל בֵּית הַמֶּכֶס, אָמַר לַעֲבָדָיו: תְּנוּ מֶכֶס לַמּוֹכְסִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הַמֶּכֶס כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ הוּא? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ כׇּל עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים וְלֹא יַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַמֶּכֶס. אַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר: ״אֲנִי ה׳ שׂוֹנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה״, מִמֶּנִּי יִלְמְדוּ בָּנַי וְיַבְרִיחוּ עַצְמָן מִן הַגָּזֵל.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering” (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.” Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ בֵּן מְבָרֵךְ לְאָבִיו. וְעֶבֶד מְבָרֵךְ לְרַבּוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה מְבָרֶכֶת לְבַעְלָהּ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבֹא מְאֵירָה לְאָדָם שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו מְבָרְכִין לוֹ.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Actually, they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf.
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה טּוֹב וּמָה ה׳ דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. ״עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט״ — זֶה הַדִּין, ״וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד״ — זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, ״וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — זוֹ הוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה לַחוּפָּה. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״הַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת״, דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּצִנְעָא — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)? “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is referring to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy, both of which must be performed without fanfare. The Gemara summarizes: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If, with regard to matters that tend to be conducted in public, as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, the Torah says: Walk humbly, then in matters that tend to be conducted in private, e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, all the more so should they be conducted privately.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה יוֹתֵר מִכׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֲשֹׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט נִבְחָר לַה׳ מִזָּבַח״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גְּדוֹלָה גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים יוֹתֵר מִן הַצְּדָקָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִרְעוּ לָכֶם לִצְדָקָה וְקִצְרוּ לְפִי חֶסֶד״. אִם אָדָם זוֹרֵעַ — סָפֵק אוֹכֵל סָפֵק אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אָדָם קוֹצֵר — וַדַּאי אוֹכֵל.
§ Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs acts of charity is greater than one who sacrifices all types of offerings, as it is stated: “To perform charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” (Proverbs 21:3), including all types of offerings. And Rabbi Elazar said: Acts of kindness, assisting someone in need, are greater than charity, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12). This means: If a person sows, it is uncertain whether he will eat or whether he will not eat, since much can go wrong before the seed becomes food. However, if a person reaps, he certainly eats. In this verse, charity is likened to sowing, while acts of kindness are likened to reaping.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין צְדָקָה מִשְׁתַּלֶּמֶת אֶלָּא לְפִי חֶסֶד שֶׁבָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִרְעוּ לָכֶם לִצְדָקָה וְקִצְרוּ לְפִי חֶסֶד״.
And Rabbi Elazar said: The reward for charity is paid from Heaven only in accordance with the kindness and generosity included therein and in accordance with the effort and the consideration that went into the giving. It is not merely in accordance with the sum of money, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness.”
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים גְּדוֹלָה גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים יוֹתֵר מִן הַצְּדָקָה. צְדָקָה — בְּמָמוֹנוֹ; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. צְדָקָה — לָעֲנִיִּים; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין לָעֲנִיִּים בֵּין לָעֲשִׁירִים. צְדָקָה — לַחַיִּים; גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — בֵּין לַחַיִּים בֵּין לַמֵּתִים.
The Sages taught that acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity can be performed only with one’s money, while acts of kindness can be performed both with his person and with his money. Charity is given to the poor, while acts of kindness are performed both for the poor and for the rich. Charity is given to the living, while acts of kindness are performed both for the living and for the dead.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט, כְּאִילּוּ מִילֵּא כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ חֶסֶד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹהֵב צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט חֶסֶד ה׳ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ״. שֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר כׇּל הַבָּא לִקְפּוֹץ קוֹפֵץ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַה יָּקָר חַסְדְּךָ אֱלֹהִים (חֶסֶד ה׳ מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ) וְגוֹ׳״. יָכוֹל אַף יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם כֵּן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְחֶסֶד ה׳ מֵעוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם עַל יְרֵאָיו״.
And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who performs charity and justice is considered as though he filled the whole world in its entirety with kindness, as it is stated: “He loves charity and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord” (Psalms 33:5). Lest you say that anyone who comes to leap and perform an act of kindness may simply leap and do so without scrutiny, the verse states: “How precious is your kindness, O God” (Psalms 36:8). It is a precious and rare occurrence to perform an act of kindness properly. One might have thought that even a God-fearing individual does not always encounter the opportunity to perform acts of kindness. Therefore, the verse states: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him” (Psalms 103:17).
אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר פָּפָּא: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו חֵן, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֶסֶד ה׳ מֵעוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם עַל יְרֵאָיו״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״פִּיהָ פָּתְחָה בְחָכְמָה וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד עַל לְשׁוֹנָהּ״, וְכִי יֵשׁ תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד וְיֵשׁ תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד? אֶלָּא: תּוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ — זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ — זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: תּוֹרָה לְלַמְּדָהּ — זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁל חֶסֶד, שֶׁלֹּא לְלַמְּדָהּ — זוֹ הִיא תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל חֶסֶד.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Pappa said: With regard to any person who has grace about him, it is certain that he is God-fearing, as it is stated: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him.” When one sees that a certain individual is endowed with grace and kindness, one can be certain that he is a God-fearing person. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and a Torah of kindness is on her tongue” (Proverbs 31:26)? The Gemara asks: Is there, then, a Torah of kindness and a Torah that is not of kindness? Rather, it is Torah studied for its own sake that is a Torah of kindness, as one studies it wholeheartedly; and it is Torah studied not for its own sake but for some ulterior motive that is a Torah that is not of kindness. Some say that it is Torah studied in order to teach it to others that is a Torah of kindness; it is Torah studied with the intent of not teaching it to others that is a Torah that is not of kindness.
תַּנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן, כְּשֶׁהָיָה שָׂמֵחַ בְּשִׂמְחַת בֵּית הַשּׁוֹאֵבָה, אָמַר כֵּן: אִם אֲנִי כָּאן — הַכֹּל כָּאן, וְאִם אֵינִי כָּאן — מִי כָּאן. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר כֵּן: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹהֵב — שָׁם רַגְלַי מוֹלִיכוֹת אוֹתִי. אִם תָּבֹא אֶל בֵּיתִי — אֲנִי אָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ, אִם אַתָּה לֹא תָּבֹא אֶל בֵּיתִי — אֲנִי לֹא אָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּכׇל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ״.
It is taught in the Tosefta: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he was rejoicing at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water he said this: If I am here, everyone is here; and if I am not here, who is here? In other words, one must consider himself as the one upon whom it is incumbent to fulfill obligations, and he must not rely on others to do so. He would also say this: To the place that I love, there my feet take me, and therefore, I come to the Temple. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house; if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house, as it is stated: “In every place that I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:20).
אַף הוּא רָאָה גֻּלְגּוֹלֶת אַחַת שֶׁצָּפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, אֲמַר לַהּ: עַל דְּאַטֵּפְתְּ אַטְפוּךְ וּמְטִיפַיִךְ יְטוּפוּן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַגְלוֹהִי דְּבַר אִינִישׁ אִינּוּן עָרְבִין בֵּיהּ, לַאֲתַר דְּמִיתְבְּעֵי — תַּמָּן מוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ.
The Gemara cites another statement of Hillel the Elder. Additionally, he saw one skull that was floating on the water and he said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned. That is the way of the world; everyone is punished measure for measure. Apropos following one’s feet, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.
וּמִשּׁוּם אֲבוּהּ וְאִימֵּיהּ קָנְסִינַן לְכוּלַּהּ מִשְׁמָרָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אוֹי לָרָשָׁע אוֹי לִשְׁכֵינוֹ, טוֹב לַצַּדִּיק טוֹב לִשְׁכֵינוֹ [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ״].
The Gemara asks: And due to Miriam’s father and mother, do we penalize an entire watch? Abaye said: Woe unto the wicked, woe unto his neighbor. To conclude the tractate on a positive note, the Gemara says: Good for the righteous, good for his neighbor, as it is stated: “Say you of the righteous that it shall be good for him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings” (Isaiah 3:10); the neighbors of a righteous man who witness and acknowledge the good that befalls him will benefit from their proximity to him.
אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמֹשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו״.
§ Apropos the statements about honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites another statement on the same topic. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: One who gives a gift to his friend need not inform him that he has given it to him, and he need not concern himself that the recipient might not realize who gave it to him. As it is stated: “And Moses did not know that the skin of his face was radiant” (Exodus 34:29); Moses received this gift unawares.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״לָדַעַת כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם״, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: מֹשֶׁה! מַתָּנָה טוֹבָה יֵשׁ לִי בְּבֵית גְּנָזַי וְשַׁבָּת שְׁמָהּ, וַאֲנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵךְ וְהוֹדִיעַ אוֹתָם. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: הַנּוֹתֵן פַּת לְתִינוֹק, צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ לְאִמּוֹ.
The Gemara raises an objection to this. Isn’t it written: “Nevertheless, you must keep My Shabbatot, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Exodus 31:13), which the Sages expounded as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, I have a good gift in My treasury, and its name is Shabbat, and I wish to give it to the Jewish people. Go and inform them of this intention of Mine. And from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a gift of a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother of his actions, so that the child’s parents will be aware of the giver’s fond feelings for them, thereby enhancing friendly relations and companionship among Jews. This appears to be in direct contradiction to Rabbi Ḥama’s statement.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמַתָּנָה דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִגַּלּוֹיֵי, הָא בְּמַתָּנָה דְּלָא עֲבִידָא לְאִגַּלּוֹיֵי. שַׁבָּת נָמֵי מַתָּנָה דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִגַּלּוֹיֵי! מַתַּן שְׂכָרָהּ לָא עֲבִידָא לְאִגַּלּוֹיֵי.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where one need not inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is likely to be revealed, such as Moses’ shining face, which everyone would point out to him; that case, where one must inform the recipient, is referring to a gift that is not likely to be revealed in the natural course of events. The Gemara challenges: Isn’t Shabbat also a gift that is likely to be revealed, as the Jews would eventually be instructed with regard to the time and nature of Shabbat? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, its reward is not likely to be revealed. Therefore, God told Moses to inform the Jews of the gift of Shabbat and its reward.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַעֲרָמָה קָא אָמְרַתְּ — שָׁאנֵי הַעֲרָמָה דְּאַחְמִירוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן טְפֵי מִמֵּזִיד.
Rav Ashi said: This is no proof, as you speak of a case of artifice, and a case of artifice is different, as the Sages were more stringent with regard to one who employs artifice than with regard to one who intentionally cooks on a Festival for Shabbat. One who purposely transgresses is aware of his sin; therefore, he might repent and desist from his prohibited behavior, thereby preventing others from learning from his actions. However, one who employs artifice to circumvent a prohibition thinks that he is acting in a permitted manner. He is therefore likely to continue his practice. Furthermore, people might emulate him, and the halakha of preparing an eiruv might be forgotten.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ, הַאי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ מִלְּתָא, לָא לַהְדַּר לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא טְפֵי מִמַּאי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ, דְּאִיהוּ אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״מָה זוֹ סְמִיכָה״, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ: ״מָה זוֹ שְׁתִיקָה״.
Abaye said: Therefore, it is clear from here that a Torah scholar whose colleague says something reprimanding or insulting to him should not answer back with something more than his colleague had said to him, to avoid adding fuel to the fire, as in the above story the one said to the other: What is this placing of hands? and the latter responded to the former using the same language: What is this silence?
כִּדְתַנְיָא: לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם שׁוּם וּבָצָל מֵרֹאשׁוֹ, אֶלָּא מֵעָלָיו. וְאִם אָכַל — הֲרֵי זֶה רְעַבְתָּן. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ: לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם כּוֹסוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת, וְאִם שָׁתָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גַּרְגְּרָן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹתֶה כּוֹסוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה גַּרְגְּרָן, שְׁנַיִם — דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שְׁלֹשָׁה — מִגַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ.
§ The Sages teach proper manners unconnected to any prohibition, as it is taught in a baraita: A person should not eat garlic or onions from the side of its head, i.e., its roots, but rather from the side of its leaves. And if he did eat in that manner, he gives the appearance of being a glutton. Similarly, a person should not drink his cup of wine all at once, and if he did drink in this manner, he gives the appearance of being a greedy drinker. The Sages taught in this regard: One who drinks his cup all at once is a greedy drinker; if he does so in two swallows, this is proper etiquette; in three swallows, he is of haughty spirit, as he presents himself as overly delicate and refined.
וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: חֲצוּבָא — מְקַטַּע רַגְלֵיהוֹן דְּרַשִּׁיעַיָּא.
Apropos the previous discussion, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Abba also said: The sea squill, a plant from the lily family whose roots project deep into the ground, will cut off the feet of the wicked in the future on the Day of Judgment. It was customary to plant sea squill on the edges of fields as boundary markers because their roots grow straight down without spreading out. Those who overstepped boundaries and infringed upon their neighbor’s property should have heeded the markers and desisted.
נְטִיעָה — מְקַטַּע רַגְלֵיהוֹן דְּקַצָּבַיָּא וּדְבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת.
Similarly, young trees will cut off the feet of butchers and those who have relations with menstruating women. After a tree is planted, one must wait three years before eating its fruit. This should serve as a lesson for those butchers who hasten to eat of the animal’s meat before removing its hide, and for those who have relations with their menstruating wives and do not wait for them to achieve ritual purification.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא כָּנַס שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי יַיִן מִבֵּרוּרֵי הַמִּדּוֹת, וַחֲבֵרָיו כָּנְסוּ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן מִמִּצּוּי הַמִּדּוֹת, וֶהֱבִיאוּם לִפְנֵי הַגִּזְבָּרִים לִירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Sages taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul ben Botnit collected three hundred earthenware jugs of wine, to which he thought he was not entitled due to the clarity of the measures, as he thought that he had unfairly profited from the foam at the top of the liquid he measured. And his colleagues, similarly God-fearing grocers, collected three hundred earthenware jugs of oil, which they thought were not rightly theirs due to the draining of the measures; they were concerned that because they had measured for their customers using their own vessels, they might not have drained the entire measure from their containers into the customers’ vessels. And they brought these jugs of wine and oil to Jerusalem before the Temple treasurers, as they did not want to benefit from possibly stolen goods.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אִי אַתֶּם זְקוּקִים לְכָךְ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אַף אָנוּ אֵין רְצוֹנֵנוּ בְּכָךְ.
The treasurers said to them: You need not do this, as all buyers take into account the foam and what is left in the sellers’ vessels and pay with this in mind. They said to them: Just like the buyers give up their claim to it, we too do not wish to benefit from this, even if strictly speaking it is not considered stolen property.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: הוֹאִיל וְהֶחְמַרְתֶּם עַל עַצְמְכֶם — עֲשׂוּ מֵהֶם צׇרְכֵי רַבִּים. דְּתַנְיָא: גָּזַל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִמִּי גָּזַל — יַעֲשֶׂה בָּהֶם צׇרְכֵי רַבִּים. מַאי נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בּוֹרוֹת, שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת.
The treasurers said to them: Since you are so stringent with yourselves, use the wine and oil for communal needs. As it is taught in a baraita: If one stole and does not know from whom he stole, he should use the stolen items for communal needs, thereby repaying all of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: What are communal needs? Rav Ḥisda said: He should finance the digging of cisterns, ditches, and caves, for storing water for travelers.
אֶלָּא: הַנַּח לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוּטָב שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְזִידִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: הַנַּח לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוּטָב שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹגְגִין וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְזִידִין.
Rather, the accepted principle is: Leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners. If people engage in a certain behavior that cannot be corrected, it is better not to reprove them, as they are likely to continue regardless of the reproof, and then they will be sinning intentionally. It is therefore preferable for them to be unaware that they are violating a prohibition and remain merely unwitting sinners. Here, too, with regard to clapping and dancing, leave the Jews alone; it is better that they be unwitting sinners and not be intentional sinners.
אָמַר: הָנֵי מֵעֵרֶב רַב קָא אָתוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ״, כׇּל הַמְרַחֵם עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַחֵם עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ.
He said: These wealthy people are not descendants of our forefathers, but they came from the mixed multitude, as it is written: “And show you compassion, and have compassion upon you, and multiply you, as He has sworn to your fathers” (Deuteronomy 13:18), from which it is derived: Anyone who has compassion for God’s creatures, it is known that he is of the descendants of Abraham, our father, and anyone who does not have compassion for God’s creatures, it is known that he is not of the descendants of Abraham, our father. Since these wealthy Babylonians do not have compassion on people, clearly they are not descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
וְאָמַר רַב נָתָן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמְצַפֶּה עַל שֻׁלְחַן אֲחֵרִים — עוֹלָם חָשַׁךְ בַּעֲדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹדֵד הוּא לַלֶּחֶם אַיֵּה יָדַע כִּי נָכוֹן בְּיָדוֹ יוֹם חֹשֶׁךְ״. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אַף חַיָּיו אֵינָן חַיִּים.
This is another teaching that Rav Natan bar Abba said that Rav said: Whoever looks to the table of others for his sustenance, the world is dark for him. Everything looks bleak and hopeless to him, for it is stated: “He wanders abroad for bread: Where is it? He knows the day of darkness is ready at his hand” (Job 15:23). Rav Ḥisda said: Even his life is no life, as he receives no satisfaction from it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה חַיֵּיהֶן אֵינָם חַיִּים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַמְצַפֶּה לְשֻׁלְחַן חֲבֵירוֹ, וּמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מוֹשֶׁלֶת עָלָיו, וּמִי שֶׁיִּסּוּרִין מוֹשְׁלִין בְּגוּפוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חָלוּק אֶחָד. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא: אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְעַיֵּין בְּמָנֵיהּ.
In support of this last claim, the Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught: There are three whose lives are not lives, and they are as follows: One who looks to the table of others for his sustenance; and one whose wife rules over him; and one whose body is ruled by suffering. And some say: Even one who has only one robe. Since he cannot wash it properly, he suffers from lice and dirt. The Gemara comments: And the first tanna, who did not include such a person, maintains: It is possible for him to examine his clothes and remove the lice, which would alleviate his suffering.
תְּנַן: מַשִּׁילִין פֵּירוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אֲרוּבָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מְפַנִּין אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל תֶּבֶן וְשֶׁל תְּבוּאָה מִפְּנֵי הָאוֹרְחִים, וּמִפְּנֵי בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.
§ The Gemara discusses the halakha in the mishna: We learned that one may lower produce through a skylight on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Up to how much produce may be lowered in this manner? At what point is it considered to be too strenuous an activity to be performed on the Festival? Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Asi said, and some say that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is like that which we learned in a mishna with regard to a different case: One may clear out four or five sacks of hay or grain from a room on Shabbat due to visitors, to clear a place for them to sit, or due to suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., to make room there for more people, who would not be able to study Torah otherwise. Here too, only four or five sacks’ worth of produce may be lowered from the roof.
וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלֵיכָּא בִּטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ — לָא. אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּאַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ קוּפּוֹת שְׁרֵי מִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת דַּחֲמִירָא וְלָא אָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בַּיהּ, אֲבָל יוֹם טוֹב דְּקִיל וְאָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ — כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא.
The Gemara raises an objection to the comparison of the two cases. But perhaps there it is different, since there is the matter of preventing suspension of study in the study hall or of providing hospitality to guests, i.e., moving those items is permitted in order to facilitate a mitzva. But here, where there is no suspension of study in the study hall, i.e., no facilitation of any mitzva, they did not permit one to move such a large amount. Alternatively: There, this is the reasoning that four or five sacks are permitted: Because Shabbat is severe in people’s eyes and they will not come to belittle it; but on a Festival, which is regarded more lightly and which people might come to belittle, one may not move the items at all.
וּמַאן דְּעָבֵד הָכִי לָאו מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר: ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיוּ בָּנַי״, וּ״בִשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֶזְכֶּה בָּהּ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״ — הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר.
The Gemara asks: And one who acts in this manner, is he not acting in exemplary fashion? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one gives charity, saying: I give this sela for charity in order that my children may live, or: I give it in order that through it I may merit life in the World-to-Come, he is still considered a full-fledged righteous person? If so, what was wrong with the king bringing offerings so that the Jews would pray for his life and the life of his children?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן בְּגוֹיִם.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the case of one who makes his charity conditional yet is considered to be righteous, it is referring to a Jew. This is because even if his condition is not fulfilled, he will not complain to God. However, there, where Cyrus was not given credit for his good deed because it was conditional, it is referring to gentiles. A gentile may come to regret his actions and complain to God if his condition is not fulfilled.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן בְּגוֹיִם.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the case of one who makes his charity conditional yet is considered to be righteous, it is referring to a Jew. This is because even if his condition is not fulfilled, he will not complain to God. However, there, where Cyrus was not given credit for his good deed because it was conditional, it is referring to gentiles. A gentile may come to regret his actions and complain to God if his condition is not fulfilled.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַזְכִּירִין עֲוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: קִיר נָטוּי, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וּמוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: כָּל הַמּוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ — הוּא נֶעֱנָשׁ תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם חֲמָסִי עָלֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפּוֹד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכּוֹתָהּ״.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Three matters evoke a person’s sins, and they are: Endangering oneself by sitting next to an inclined wall that is about to collapse; expecting prayer to be accepted, as that leads to an assessment of one’s status and merit; and passing a case against another to Heaven, for Rabbi Avin said: Anyone who passes a case against another to God is punished first. Praying for God to pass judgment on another causes one’s own deeds to be examined and compared with the deeds of the other, as it is stated: “And Sarai said to Abram: My anger be upon you; I have given my maid into your bosom, and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes; let the Lord judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5), and it is written afterward: “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her” (Genesis 23:2). Sarah called upon Heaven to pass judgment between her and her husband, and therefore she was punished and died first.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים מְקָרְעִין גְּזַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: צְדָקָה, צְעָקָה, שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, וְשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה. צְדָקָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּצְדָקָה תַּצִּיל מִמָּוֶת״. צְעָקָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצְעֲקוּ אֶל ה׳ בַּצַּר לָהֶם וּמִמְּצוּקוֹתֵיהֶם יוֹצִיאֵם״. שִׁינּוּי הַשֵּׁם, דִּכְתִיב: ״שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי כִּי שָׂרָה שְׁמָהּ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וּבֵרַכְתִּי אוֹתָהּ וְגַם נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנָּה לְךָ בֵּן״. שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּנָּחֶם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם וְלֹא עָשָׂה״.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s sentence is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them: Giving charity, as it is written: “And charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2); crying out in prayer, as it is written: “Then they cry to the Lord in their trouble, and He brings them out of their distresses” (Psalms 107:28); a change of one’s name, as it is written: “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be” (Genesis 17:15), and it is written there: “And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son from her” (Genesis 17:16); a change of one’s deeds for the better, as it is written: “And God saw their deeds” (Jonah 3:10), and it is written there: “And God repented of the evil, which He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10).
אֲבָל הַמִּינִין וְהַמָּסוֹרוֹת וְהָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִים שֶׁכָּפְרוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְשֶׁכָּפְרוּ בִּתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, וְשֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ מִדַּרְכֵי צִבּוּר, וְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ חִיתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים, וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ וְהֶחְטִיאוּ אֶת הָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט וַחֲבֵירָיו — יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם וְנִידּוֹנִין בָּהּ לְדוֹרֵי דּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצְאוּ וְרָאוּ בְּפִגְרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי וְגוֹ׳״.
But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates [apikorsim]; and those who denied the Torah; and those who denied the resurrection of the dead; and those who separated from the ways of the Jewish community and refused to share the suffering; and those who cast their fear over the land of the living; and those who sinned and caused the masses to sin, for example, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and his company; all of these people descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die; neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).
גֵּיהִנָּם כָּלֶה וְהֵן אֵינָן כָּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְצוּרָם לְבַלּוֹת שְׁאוֹל מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בִּזְבוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִזְּבוּל לוֹ״, וְאֵין ״זְבוּל״ אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּנֹה בָנִיתִי בֵּית זְבוּל לָךְ״, וַעֲלֵיהֶם אָמְרָה חַנָּה: ״ה׳ יֵחַתּוּ מְרִיבָיו״.
Gehenna will terminate, but they still will not terminate, as it is stated: “And their form shall wear away the netherworld, so that there be no dwelling for Him” (Psalms 49:15); that is to say, Gehenna itself will be worn away before their punishment has come to an end. And why are they punished so severely? Because they stretched out their hands against God’s dwelling, the Temple, and everything else that is sanctified, as it is stated: “So that there be no dwelling [zevul] for Him.” Dwelling [zevul] is referring here only to the Temple, as it is stated: “I have built You a house for dwelling [zevul] in” (I Kings 8:13). And about them Hannah said: “The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken in pieces” (I Samuel 2:10).
פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּגוּפָן, מַאי נִיהוּ? אָמַר רַב: קַרְקַפְתָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח תְּפִלִּין. פּוֹשְׁעֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בְּגוּפָן — אָמַר רַב: בַּעֲבֵירָה.
The Gemara asks: The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: This is referring to the skull that did not ever don phylacteries. The Gemara asks further: The rebellious ones of the nations of the world who sin with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: They are those who engage in the sin, i.e., forbidden sexual relations.
וְשֶׁנָּתְנוּ חִיתִּיתָם בְּאֶרֶץ חַיִּים — אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֶה פַּרְנָס הַמַּטִּיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל פַּרְנָס הַמַּטִּיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בֵּן תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָכֵן יְרֵאוּהוּ אֲנָשִׁים לֹא יִרְאֶה כׇּל חַכְמֵי לֵב״.
And those who cast their fear over the land of the living, who are they? Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring to a communal leader [parnas] who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any community leader who casts excessive fear on the community not for the sake of Heaven will be punished and not see any Torah scholar among his sons, as it is stated: “Men do therefore fear him; he sees not any who are wise of heart” (Job 37:24). One who brings others to fear him will not merit having wise-hearted people in his family.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֲלַשׁ, עָל רַב פָּפָּא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּחֲלִישׁ לֵיהּ עָלְמָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: צְבִיתוּ לֵיהּ זְוַודְתָּא. לְסוֹף אִיתְּפַח, הֲוָה מִיכְּסִיף רַב פָּפָּא לְמִיחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי חֲזֵית? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין, הָכִי הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הוֹאִיל וְלָא מוֹקֵים בְּמִילֵּיהּ — לָא תְּקוּמוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״, לְמִי נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן — לְעוֹבֵר פֶּשַׁע.
It is related that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, became sick, and Rav Pappa went into his home to inquire about his well-being. He saw that the world was growing weak for Rav Huna, i.e., he was dying. Rav Pappa said to his attendants: Prepare his provisions [zavdata], i.e., his shrouds. In the end, Rav Huna recovered. Rav Pappa was embarrassed to go and see him, as it seemed as if he had decreed Rav Huna’s death. Rav Huna’s friends said to him: What did you see when you were lying there suspended between life and death? He said to them: Yes, it was so, I was truly close to dying, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the heavenly court: Since he does not stand on his rights, i.e., he is ready to waive what is due him, you too should not be exacting with him in his judgment, as it is stated: “He bears [noseh] sin and forgives transgression.” Whose sins does He bear? The sins of one who forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices committed against him.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֲלַשׁ, עָל רַב פָּפָּא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּחֲלִישׁ לֵיהּ עָלְמָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: צְבִיתוּ לֵיהּ זְוַודְתָּא. לְסוֹף אִיתְּפַח, הֲוָה מִיכְּסִיף רַב פָּפָּא לְמִיחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי חֲזֵית? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין, הָכִי הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הוֹאִיל וְלָא מוֹקֵים בְּמִילֵּיהּ — לָא תְּקוּמוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״, לְמִי נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן — לְעוֹבֵר פֶּשַׁע.
It is related that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, became sick, and Rav Pappa went into his home to inquire about his well-being. He saw that the world was growing weak for Rav Huna, i.e., he was dying. Rav Pappa said to his attendants: Prepare his provisions [zavdata], i.e., his shrouds. In the end, Rav Huna recovered. Rav Pappa was embarrassed to go and see him, as it seemed as if he had decreed Rav Huna’s death. Rav Huna’s friends said to him: What did you see when you were lying there suspended between life and death? He said to them: Yes, it was so, I was truly close to dying, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the heavenly court: Since he does not stand on his rights, i.e., he is ready to waive what is due him, you too should not be exacting with him in his judgment, as it is stated: “He bears [noseh] sin and forgives transgression.” Whose sins does He bear? The sins of one who forgoes his reckonings with others for injustices committed against him.
נִטְפַּל לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן. אָמַר לָהּ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לָךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לְאָדָם שֶׁנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה וְקָבַע לוֹ זְמַן בִּפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ בְּחַיֵּי הַמֶּלֶךְ, הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא פְּרָעוֹ. בָּא לְפַיֵּיס אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: עֶלְבּוֹנִי מָחוּל לָךְ, לֵךְ וּפַיֵּיס אֶת חֲבֵירְךָ. הָכָא נָמֵי, כָּאן בַּעֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לְמָקוֹם — כָּאן בַּעֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
Rabbi Yosei the priest joined the conversation with her and said: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To a person who lent his friend one hundred dinars and fixed a time for repayment of the loan before the king, and the borrower took an oath by the life of the king that he would repay the money. The time arrived, and he did not repay the loan. The delinquent borrower came to appease the king for not fulfilling the oath that he had sworn by the life of the king, and the king said to him: For my insult I forgive you, but you must still go and appease your friend. Here also the same is true: Here, the verse that states: “The Lord shall show favor to you,” is referring to sins committed between man and God, which God will forgive; there, the verse that states: “God favors no one,” is referring to sins committed between a person and another, which God will not forgive until the offender appeases the one he hurt.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּזֶבַח וּבַמִּנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר — אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּתוֹרָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּזֶבַח וּמִנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר — אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. רַבָּה וְאַבָּיֵי מִדְּבֵית עֵלִי קָאָתוּ. רַבָּה דַּעֲסַק בַּתּוֹרָה — חֲיָה אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, אַבָּיֵי דַּעֲסַק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — חֲיָה שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין.
With regard to this verse Rava said: With sacrifice or offering the sin of Eli’s house is not atoned, but it can be atoned through Torah study. Abaye said: With sacrifice or offering the sin of Eli’s house is not atoned, but it is atoned through Torah study and the performance of acts of kindness. It is related that Rabba and Abaye came from the house of Eli, which was subject to the curse that most of its members would die young. Rabba, who engaged almost exclusively in Torah study, lived for forty years, whereas Abaye, who engaged in both Torah study and in the performance of acts of kindness lived for sixty years.
מַאי טַעְמָא —
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rav Dimi’s opinion? Intimidating witnesses into testifying about something that they did not see is worse than intimidating them to withhold testimony about something that they did see.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין: הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא, וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וַעֲבָדִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁירָה לָהּ, אַף הֵן אֵינָן כְּשֵׁירִין לָהּ.
MISHNA: The following are unfit to give testimony, as they are considered thieves and robbers: One who plays with dice [kubbiyya] or other games of chance for money; and those who lend money with interest; and those who race pigeons and place wagers on the outcome; and merchants who deal in produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten, but may not be an object of commerce; and slaves. This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is unfit, these too are unfit. Although in certain cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., to testify to the death of someone’s husband, in the majority of cases her testimony is not valid.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ — מוֹלִיכִים אוֹתוֹ עַל הַחֲמוֹר, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִטָּה. וְאִם צוֹדֶה לָהֶם, — לוֹקְחִין בְּיָדָן מַקְלוֹת.
MISHNA: With regard to one who saw the new moon but is unable to go to Jerusalem by foot because he is sick or has difficulty walking, others may bring him on a donkey or even in a bed, even on Shabbat if necessary. And if the witnesses are concerned that bandits may be lying in wait for them along the road, they may take clubs or other weapons in their hands, even on Shabbat.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ מְלַמְּדָהּ, דּוֹמֶה לַהֲדַס בַּמִּדְבָּר. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: כׇּל הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה וּמְלַמְּדָהּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — דּוֹמֶה לַהֲדַס בַּמִּדְבָּר, דְּחַבִּיב.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan also said: Anyone who studies Torah but does not teach it to others is likened to a myrtle in the wilderness. The myrtle has a pleasant fragrance, but there is nobody to enjoy it in the wilderness. There are those who say a different version of this statement: Anyone who studies Torah and teaches it to others in a place where there are no other Torah scholars is likened to a myrtle in the wilderness, which is especially precious and thoroughly enjoyed by those who find it.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲבַד, וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִּלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה לָמֵד לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara suggests yet another answer: If you wish, say: Rabban Gamliel did this to teach himself, which is not prohibited, as it is written: “You shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9), which indicates: However, you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, it is permitted to do certain things for the sake of Torah study which would otherwise be prohibited.
לוֹמַר לָךְ: יְרוּבַּעַל בְּדוֹרוֹ — כְּמֹשֶׁה בְּדוֹרוֹ, בְּדָן בְּדוֹרוֹ — כְּאַהֲרֹן בְּדוֹרוֹ, יִפְתָּח בְּדוֹרוֹ — כִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּדוֹרוֹ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ: שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ קַל שֶׁבַּקַּלִּין וְנִתְמַנָּה פַּרְנָס עַל הַצִּבּוּר — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַבִּיר שֶׁבָּאַבִּירִים.
This comes to tell you that Jerubaal in his generation is worthy of being treated like Moses in his generation; Bedan in his generation is like Aaron in his generation; and Jephthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation. This serves to teach you that even the lightest of the light, i.e., the least distinguished individual, once he has been appointed as a leader over the community, he must be treated like the greatest of the great, and all are required to heed him and obey his rulings.
וְאוֹמֵר: ״וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם״, וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁאָדָם הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל הַדַּיָּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּיָמָיו? הָא אֵין לְךָ לֵילֵךְ אֶלָּא אֵצֶל שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁבְּיָמָיו. וְאוֹמֵר: ״אַל תֹּאמַר מֶה הָיָה שֶׁהַיָּמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ טוֹבִים מֵאֵלֶּה״.
And it further says: “And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 17:9). But can it enter your mind that a person can go to a judge that is not alive in his days? What, then, is the meaning of the phrase “in those days”? It teaches that you need to go only to the judge in one’s days, i.e., he is authorized to judge and decide matters. And it also says: “Do not say: How was it that the former days were better than these? For it is not out of wisdom that you inquire concerning this” (Ecclesiastes 7:10). Instead, one must accept the rulings of the leaders of his generation.
נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אוֹתוֹ, עָמַד מִכִּסְּאוֹ וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי! רַבִּי — שֶׁלִּמַּדְתַּנִי תּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים, וְתַלְמִידִי — שֶׁאֲנִי גּוֹזֵר עָלֶיךָ גְּזֵירָה וְאַתָּה מְקַיְּימָהּ כְּתַלְמִיד. אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר שֶׁהַגְּדוֹלִים נִשְׁמָעִים לַקְּטַנִּים, קַל וָחוֹמֶר קְטַנִּים לַגְּדוֹלִים.
§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Yehoshua took his staff and his money in his hand, and appeared before Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his calculation, as Rabban Gamliel had ordered him to do. The Sages taught in a baraita: When Rabban Gamliel saw Rabbi Yehoshua, he rose from his chair and kissed him on his head and said to him: Peace be on you, my teacher and my student. My teacher, as you have taught me Torah in public, and my student, as I issue a decree against you and you fulfill it like a student of mine. Fortunate is the generation in which the greater heed the lesser, and it is an a fortiori inference that the generation in which the lesser heed the greater is certainly fortunate as well.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר?! חִיּוּבָא הוּא! אֶלָּא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהַגְּדוֹלִים נִשְׁמָעִים לַקְּטַנִּים — נוֹשְׂאִין קְטַנִּים קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמָן.
The Gemara questions this last point: Is this derived by an a fortiori inference? This is incorrect, as it is an obligation for the lesser to heed those who are greater than them. Rather, Rabbi Gamliel meant the following: Since the greater heed the lesser, the lesser apply an a fortiori inference to themselves and heed the leaders of the generation.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְאַהֲבָה בְּרֵיהּ, פּוֹק תְּנִי לְהוּ: הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְקַבְּלִין עֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם לְהַקְרִיב תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם, וְלוֹמַר שִׁירָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּשִׁיבּוּשׁ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אֲמוּר שִׁירָה דְחוֹל — הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא שִׁיבּוּשׁ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא אֲמוּר כְּלָל — מַאי שִׁיבּוּשׁ אִיכָּא!
Rabbi Zeira said to his son Ahava: Go out and teach the following baraita to the Sages of Babylonia: They instituted that on Rosh HaShana the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only if there was enough time left in the day to sacrifice the daily offerings and the additional offerings of the Festival and their libations, and to recite the appropriate song without a mistake. Granted, if you say that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday, this is a case in which there is a mistake. However, if you say that they did not recite any psalm at all, what mistake is there? The term: Mistake, indicates the performance of an incorrect action.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם? אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא, אִי שָׁקֵילְנָא בִּישְׂרָא מִטַּבָּחָא וְלָא יָהֵיבְנָא דְּמֵי לְאַלְתַּר. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא תָּבְעִי, אֲבָל בְּאַתְרָא דְּתָבְעִי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances that cause desecration of God’s name? Rav said: For example, in the case of someone like me, since I am an important public figure, if I take meat from a butcher and do not give him money immediately, people are likely to think that I did not mean to pay at all. They would consider me a thief and learn from my behavior that one is permitted to steal. Abaye said: They taught this statement of Rav only in a place where they do not ask for the money, where it is not customary for the butcher himself to come and collect payment from the customer. When the customer does not pay immediately, people may suspect him of theft. But in a place where they ask for the money from the customer some time later, we have no problem with doing this. Since everyone understands he is buying on credit, he is not desecrating God’s name.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא דִּמְסַגֵּינָא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלָא תּוֹרָה וּבְלָא תְּפִילִּין. יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁחֲבֵירָיו מִתְבַּיְּישִׁין מֵחֲמַת שְׁמוּעָתוֹ (הַיְינוּ חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם). אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שְׁרָא לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is an example of desecration of God’s name? For example, someone like me, if I would walk four cubits without Torah and without phylacteries, and the onlookers did not know that it is only on account of my body’s weakness, that would be a desecration of God’s name. Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Any case when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation, meaning his friends are embarrassed due to things they hear about him, this is a desecration of God’s name. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One creates a profanation of God’s name, for example, when people say about him: May his Master forgive so-and-so for the sins he has done.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, שֶׁיְּהֵא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְאַהֵב עַל יָדְךָ. שֶׁיְּהֵא קוֹרֵא וְשׁוֹנֶה וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, וִיהֵא מַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ בְּנַחַת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, מָה הַבְּרִיּוֹת אוֹמְרוֹת עָלָיו — אַשְׁרֵי אָבִיו שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, אַשְׁרֵי רַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה. אוֹי לָהֶם לַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא לָמְדוּ תּוֹרָה, פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה — רְאוּ כַּמָּה נָאִים דְּרָכָיו, כַּמָּה מְתוּקָּנִים מַעֲשָׂיו. עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לִי עַבְדִּי אָתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר בְּךָ אֶתְפָּאָר״.
Abaye said: As it was taught in a baraita that it is stated: “And you shall love the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:5), which means that you shall make the name of Heaven beloved. How should one do so? One should do so in that he should read Torah, and learn Mishna, and serve Torah scholars, and he should be pleasant with people in his business transactions. What do people say about such a person? Fortunate is his father who taught him Torah, fortunate is his teacher who taught him Torah, woe to the people who have not studied Torah. So-and-so, who taught him Torah, see how pleasant are his ways, how proper are his deeds. The verse states about him and others like him: “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (Isaiah 49:3).
אֲבָל מִי שֶׁקּוֹרֵא וְשׁוֹנֶה וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאֵין מַשָּׂאוֹ וּמַתָּנוֹ בֶּאֱמוּנָה, וְאֵין דִּבּוּרוֹ בְּנַחַת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, מָה הַבְּרִיּוֹת אוֹמְרוֹת עָלָיו — אוֹי לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁלָּמַד תּוֹרָה. אוֹי לוֹ לְאָבִיו שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה, אוֹי לוֹ לְרַבּוֹ שֶׁלִּמְּדוֹ תּוֹרָה. פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁלָּמַד תּוֹרָה — רְאוּ כַּמָּה מְקוּלְקָלִין מַעֲשָׂיו וְכַמָּה מְכוֹעָרִין דְּרָכָיו, וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״בֶּאֱמוֹר לָהֶם עַם ה׳ אֵלֶּה וּמֵאַרְצוֹ יָצָאוּ״.
But one who reads Torah, and learns Mishna, and serves Torah scholars, but his business practices are not done faithfully, and he does not speak pleasantly with other people, what do people say about him? Woe to so-and-so who studied Torah, woe to his father who taught him Torah, woe to his teacher who taught him Torah. So-and-so who studied Torah, see how destructive are his deeds, and how ugly are his ways. About him and others like him the verse states that the gentiles will say: “Men said of them: These are the people of the Lord, yet they had to leave His land” (Ezekiel 36:20). Through their sins and subsequent exile, such people have desecrated the name of God.
רַבִּי חָמָא (בַּר) חֲנִינָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים״, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שׁוֹבָבִים אַתֶּם, וּכְתִיב: ״אֶרְפָּא מְשׁוּבוֹתֵיכֶם״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן מֵאַהֲבָה, כָּאן מִיִּרְאָה.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written in one verse: “Return, you backsliding children” (Jeremiah 3:14), implying that initially when you sinned, it was only because you were backsliding, i.e., rebelling. It was merely an act of immaturity and foolishness and could be ignored as if it had never happened. But it is written: “I will heal your backsliding” (Jeremiah 3:22), implying that He will heal the sin from this point onward, and that they are still sinners. He resolved this contradiction, explaining that this is not difficult: Here, where everything is forgiven as if the Jewish people never sinned, it is referring to repentance out of love; there, where the sin is still remembered despite the forgiveness and repentance, it is referring to repentance out of fear.
רַב יְהוּדָה רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים אֶרְפָּא מְשׁוּבוֹתֵיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״(הִנֵּה) אָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָכֶם וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אֶחָד מֵעִיר וּשְׁנַיִם מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן מֵאַהֲבָה אוֹ מִיִּרְאָה, כָּאן עַל יְדֵי יִסּוּרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: גְּדוֹלָה תְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁמַּגַּעַת עַד כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוּבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״.
Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “Return, you backsliding children I will heal your backsliding” (Jeremiah 3:22), implying that anyone can achieve healing, which is dependent only on repentance. But it also states: “Return, O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am a lord to you, and I will take you one from a city, and two from a family” (Jeremiah 3:14), implying that repentance is available only to certain individuals. He resolved the contradiction and explained that this is not difficult: Here, it is referring to repentance out of love or fear, which few people achieve; there, it referring is repentance through suffering, as everyone has thoughts of repentance when they suffer. Rabbi Levi said: Great is repentance, as it reaches the heavenly throne, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). This implies that repentance literally reaches to God.
מְפַרְסְמִין אֶת הַחֲנֵפִין מִפְּנֵי חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְשׁוּב צַדִּיק מִצִּדְקוֹ וְעָשָׂה עָוֶל וְנָתַתִּי מִכְשׁוֹל לְפָנָיו״. תְּשׁוּבַת הַמּוּחְלָטִין מְעַכֶּבֶת הַפּוּרְעָנוּת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְתַּם עָלָיו גְּזַר דִּין שֶׁל פּוּרְעָנוּת.
Furthermore, they said: One exposes the hypocrites due to the desecration of God’s name, so others will not think that they are truly righteous and that their deeds bear imitating, as it is stated: “When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, I will lay a stumbling block before him” (Ezekiel 3:20). That is, when people do not know that someone is wicked to the core, he causes other people to err and this desecrates the name of God when it is revealed. The repentance of utterly wicked people prevents suffering from coming upon them. And although the sentence of judgment has already been signed against them for suffering, their repentance prevents them from being punished.
שַׁלְוַת רְשָׁעִים סוֹפָהּ תַּקָּלָה, וְהָרְשׁוּת מְקַבֶּרֶת אֶת בְּעָלֶיהָ, עָרוֹם נִכְנָס לָהּ וְעָרוֹם יֵצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּלְוַאי שֶׁתְּהֵא יְצִיאָה כְּבִיאָה. רַב כִּי הֲוָה נָפֵיק לְמֵידַן דִּינָא אָמַר הָכִי: בִּצְבוּ נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִקְטָלָא נָפֵיק, וּצְבוּ בֵּיתֵיהּ לֵית הוּא עָבֵיד, וְרֵיקָן לְבֵיתֵיהּ אָזֵיל, וּלְוַאי שֶׁתְּהֵא בִּיאָה כִּיצִיאָה.
The tranquility of the wicked is ultimately their destruction, as in their contentment they sit and think about forbidden matters. And authority buries one who owns it. He was naked when he entered into power, and he will be naked when he leaves it, and if only his exit would be like his entrance, without sin and added iniquity. The Gemara relates: When Rav would leave his home to go to court to judge cases, he would say this of himself: Of his own will, he goes to die, because a judge who misjudges a case is liable to death at the hand of Heaven; and he does not fulfill the will of his household and he goes empty-handed to his household, because a judge does not receive a salary; and if only his entrance would be like his exit, without sin or transgression.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן, מֵהָתָם מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ. אֲנַן, מֵהָכָא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲבָנֶיהָ בַרְזֶל״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״אֲבָנֶיהָ״, אֶלָּא בּוֹנֶיהָ. אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְמֵילַף נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּנִיחוּתָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָסֵר כַּעַס מִלִּבֶּךָ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned the proof for this idea from that verse there; we learned it from here, as it is written: “A land whose stones [avaneha] are iron” (Deuteronomy 8:9). Do not read this phrase as “whose stones [avaneha],” rather, read it as whose builders [boneha], since Torah scholars build the land spiritually and are as tough as iron. With regard to these statements praising the toughness of a Torah scholar, Ravina said: And even so, one is required to teach himself to act gently, as it is stated: “And remove anger from your heart, and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10).
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי נַחְמָן לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְאַחַת יִבְעֲרוּ וְיִכְסָלוּ מוּסַר הֲבָלִים עֵץ הוּא״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַחַת הִיא שֶׁמְּבַעֶרֶת רְשָׁעִים בְּגֵיהִנָּם, מַאי הִיא — עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״מוּסַר הֲבָלִים עֵץ הוּא״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הֶבֶל הֵמָּה מַעֲשֵׂה תַּעְתֻּעִים״.
§ And Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And with one they are brutish and foolish, the teaching of their vanity is a stock” (Jeremiah 10:8)? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Naḥman that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: There is one transgression that causes the wicked to burn in Gehenna. What is this transgression? Idol worship. This can be proven by a verbal analogy. It is written here: “The teaching of their vanity [hevel] is a stock,” and it is written there, with regard to idols: “They are vanity [hevel], a work of delusion” (Jeremiah 10:15).
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי בְּנָאָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּתוֹרָה לִשְׁמָהּ — תּוֹרָתוֹ נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ סַם חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ", וְאוֹמֵר: "רִפְאוּת תְּהִי לְשָׁרֶּךָ", וְאוֹמֵר: "כִּי מֹצְאִי מָצָא חַיִּים". וְכׇל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ סַם הַמָּוֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי", וְאֵין עֲרִיפָה אֶלָּא הֲרִיגָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וְעָרְפוּ שָׁם אֶת הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל".
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).
רָבָא אָמַר: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בְּעִיר אַחַת וְאֵין נוֹחִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּהֲלָכָה — מִתְקַנְּאִין בָּאַף וּמַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "מִקְנֶה אַף עַל עוֹלֶה".
Following the same interpretation of this verse, Rava said: If there are two Torah scholars who live in one city, and they are not courteous with one another in their discussions of halakha, they arouse anger upon the world and cause it to rise up, as it is stated: “Anger is acquired by one who raises his pride.”
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵהָכָא: "פָּגַעְתָּ אֶת שָׂשׂ וְעֹשֵׂה צֶדֶק בִּדְרָכֶיךָ יִזְכְּרוּךָ הֵן אַתָּה קָצַפְתָּ וַנֶּחֱטָא בָּהֶם עוֹלָם וְנִוָּשֵׁעַ". אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשָּׂמֵחַ בְּיִסּוּרִין שֶׁבָּאִין עָלָיו — מֵבִיא יְשׁוּעָה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "בָּהֶם עוֹלָם וְנִוָּשֵׁעַ".
Reish Lakish said that this principle is derived from here: “You took him away who joyfully performed righteousness, those who remembered You in Your ways, behold You were wroth, and we sinned, upon them have we stayed of old, that we might be saved” (Isaiah 64:4). This verse also teaches that God displays wrath specifically due to the transgressions of those who are accustomed to acting righteously. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said concerning the same verse: Whoever is joyful in the suffering that comes upon him brings salvation to the world [olam], as it is stated: “Upon them have we stayed of old [olam], that we might be saved.”
שָׁכַח וְאָכַל וְשָׁתָה — אַל יִתְרָאֶה בִּפְנֵי הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַל יַנְהִיג עִידּוּנִין בְּעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ", אָמַר לָהֶם יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו: אַל תַּרְאוּ עַצְמְכֶם כְּשֶׁאַתֶּם שְׂבֵעִין, לֹא בִּפְנֵי עֵשָׂו וְלֹא בִּפְנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְקַנְּאוּ בָּכֶם.
With regard to one who forgot the fast and ate and drank, he should not show himself before the community while satiated, and he should not indulge in luxuries. One should not think that because one has already eaten, his fast is completely nullified, and one may conduct himself as if it were not a fast day at all. Rather, one should minimize one’s eating, as it is stated: “And Jacob said to his sons: Why do you show yourselves?” (Genesis 42:1). Jacob said to his sons: Do not show yourselves when you are satiated, not before the members of the house of Esau, nor before those of Ishmael, so that they not be jealous of you, as they suffer from hunger. This teaches that one should not show he is full when others are hungry.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, — נִיצָּל מִמִּיתָה מְשׁוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "בָּרָעָב פָּדְךָ מִמָּוֶת". "מֵרָעָב" מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן — נִיצּוֹל מִמִּיתָה מְשׁוּנָּה.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who has food for himself but nevertheless starves himself in years of famine will be saved from an unusual death, as it is stated: “In famine, He will redeem you from death” (Job 5:20). This is derived from the precise wording of the verse. According to its straightforward meaning, instead of “in famine,” it should have said: From famine, as one is delivered from famine. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: As a reward for starving himself in years of famine, Job will be saved from an unusual death.
גְּזַר תְּלָת עַשְׂרֵה תַּעֲנִיּוֹת וְלָא אִיעֲנִי. סְבַר לְמִיגְזַר טְפֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אֵין מַטְרִיחִין אֶת הַצִּבּוּר יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי.
Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed thirteen fasts, but he was not answered. He considered decreeing more fasts until they would be answered. Rabbi Ami said to him that they said: One does not trouble the community excessively, and therefore you should not impose more than thirteen fasts.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: רַבִּי אַמֵּי דַּעֲבַד — לְגַרְמֵיהּ הוּא דַּעֲבַד. אֶלָּא הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ וּכְשֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁבַע — לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא לִגְשָׁמִים, אֲבָל לִשְׁאָר מִינֵי פוּרְעָנוּיוֹת — מִתְעַנִּין וְהוֹלְכִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָנוּ.
Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: When Rabbi Ami acted and issued this ruling, he did so on his own authority, as it went against the majority opinion. Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: They taught only that the community observes a maximum of thirteen fasts when they are praying for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered from Heaven. The Gemara comments: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: When the Sages said three and when they said seven, they spoke only concerning fasts for rain. However, with regard to other types of calamities, they continue to fast until they are answered.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לִיפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל פָּנֶיךָ״.
Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to fall on his face and humiliate himself in front of the community only if he is certain that he will be answered like Joshua, son of Nun, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Joshua, Get you up, why are you fallen upon your face?” (Joshua 7:10). One who is not absolutely certain that he will be answered may not fall on his face in public, as if he is unanswered he will become an object of derision.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לַחֲגוֹר שַׂק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹרָם בֶּן אַחְאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְהוּא עֹבֵר עַל הַחֹמָה וַיַּרְא הָעָם וְהִנֵּה הַשַּׂק עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is permitted to gird himself in sackcloth as a sign of mourning and to pray for mercy only if he is certain that he will be answered like Jehoram, son of Ahab, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes, now he was passing by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh” (II Kings 6:30). Although he was wicked, Jehoram was later answered and the suffering of the Jews was alleviated.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הַכֹּל בִּקְרִיעָה וְלֹא הַכֹּל בִּנְפִילָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרוֹן — בִּנְפִילָה, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב — בִּקְרִיעָה. מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן בִּנְפִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּפּוֹל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עַל פְּנֵיהֶם״. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב בִּקְרִיעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה קָרְעוּ בִּגְדֵיהֶם״.
And Rabbi Elazar further said: Not all are worthy to petition God by rending their garments, and not all are worthy of falling on their faces in times of trouble. Moses and Aaron were worthy of petitioning God by falling on their faces, whereas their students Joshua and Caleb prayed by only rending their garments. The Gemara elaborates: Moses and Aaron petitioned God by falling on their faces, as it is written: “Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces” (Numbers 14:5). Joshua and Caleb prayed by rending their garments, as it is written in the next verse: “And Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, who were of those who spied out the land, rent their garments” (Numbers 14:6).
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: לֹא הַכֹּל לְאוֹרָה, וְלֹא הַכֹּל לְשִׂמְחָה. צַדִּיקִים — לְאוֹרָה, וִישָׁרִים — לְשִׂמְחָה. צַדִּיקִים לְאוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אוֹר זָרֻעַ לַצַּדִּיק״. וְלִישָׁרִים שִׂמְחָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּלְיִשְׁרֵי לֵב שִׂמְחָה״.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I too say a similar idea. Not all are fit for light, and not all are fit for gladness. The righteous are fit to be rewarded with light, and the upright are fit to be rewarded with gladness. The righteous are fit to be rewarded with light, as it is written: “Light is sown for the righteous” (Psalms 97:11), and the upright are fit to be rewarded with gladness, as it is written, in the same verse: “And gladness for the upright in heart.”
סֵדֶר תַּעֲנִיּוֹת כֵּיצַד? מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַתֵּיבָה, לִרְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, וְנוֹתְנִין אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה עַל גַּבֵּי הַתֵּיבָה, וּבְרֹאשׁ הַנָּשִׂיא, וּבְרֹאשׁ אַב בֵּית דִּין, וְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ.
הַזָּקֵן שֶׁבָּהֶן אוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי כִבּוּשִׁין: אַחֵינוּ! לֹא נֶאֱמַר בְּאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה ״וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת שַׂקָּם וְאֶת תַּעֲנִיתָם״, אֶלָּא: ״וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה״, וּבַקַּבָּלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְקִרְעוּ לְבַבְכֶם וְאַל בִּגְדֵיכֶם״.
אֵין גּוֹזְרִין תַּעֲנִית עַל הַצִּבּוּר בַּתְּחִילָּה בַּחֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁלֹּא לְהַפְקִיעַ הַשְּׁעָרִים. אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת: שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי, וְשָׁלֹשׁ שְׁנִיּוֹת: חֲמִישִׁי שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת בַּחֲמִישִׁי, כָּךְ לֹא שְׁנִיּוֹת וְלֹא אַחֲרוֹנוֹת.
The mishna continues: One may not decree a fast on the community starting on a Thursday, so as not to cause an increase in prices. If the first of a series of fasts is on a Thursday, then on Friday everyone will come to purchase their food for after the fast and for Shabbat, which will allow the storeowners to take advantage of the crowds and raise their prices. Rather, the first set of three fasts is on a Monday, Thursday, and the following Monday, and the second set of three is on a Thursday, Monday, and the following Thursday. Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the first three fasts do not begin on Thursday, so too, neither the second set nor the last set starts on a Thursday. Instead, all the series of fasts begin on a Monday.
בִּגְדוּלָּה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר״. וּבִקְלָלָה מַתְחִילִין מִן הַקָּטָן — שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְקַלֵּל אָדָם!
The Gemara cites a baraita which provides the sources for this principle. With regard to matters of greatness one begins with the greatest member, as it is stated: “And Moses said to Aaron, and to Elazar and to Itamar, his sons” (Leviticus 10:6). Moses first addresses the most important person, Aaron, and this was a matter of distinction, as the verse continues: “For the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you” (Leviticus 10:7). And for any matter involving a curse, one begins with the least important member of a group, as the serpent was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed and afterward Adam was cursed.
הָא חֲשִׁיבוּתָא לְדִידְהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי לְהוּ: אַתּוּן חֲשִׁיבִיתוּ לְמִיבְעֵי עֲלַן רַחֲמֵי אַכּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא.
Why, then, are the leaders of the community, its most important members, the first to perform these fast day expressions of mourning, which are a response to a curse? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this leadership role in the performance of these acts is considered a distinction and an honor for them, as it is as though the community is saying to them: You are worthy of requesting compassion on behalf of everyone.
כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. נָשִׂיא וְאַב בֵּית דִּין נָמֵי נִשְׁקְלוּ אִינְהוּ וְנַינְּחוּ בְּרֵאשַׁיְיהוּ, מַאי שְׁנָא דְּשָׁקֵיל אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא וּמַנַּח לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן קֵסָרִי: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ
§ The mishna teaches: Each and every member of the community places ashes upon his head. The Gemara asks: Let the Nasi and the deputy Nasi also take ashes themselves and place them upon their own heads. What is different with regard to them, that someone else takes the ashes and places them on their heads? Rabbi Abba of Caesarea said: This is done intentionally, as one who humiliates himself, in this case by placing ashes upon his own head, is not similar to
לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים. וְהֵיכָא מַנַּח לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בִּמְקוֹם תְּפִילִּין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָשׂוּם לַאֲבֵלֵי צִיּוֹן לָתֵת לָהֶם פְּאֵר תַּחַת אֵפֶר״.
one who is humiliated by others. Accordingly, ashes are placed on the heads of the leaders of the community by others, to increase the appearance of their suffering. The Gemara asks: And where exactly are the ashes placed upon their heads? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: On the place of the phylacteries of the head, as it is stated: “To appoint to those who mourn in Zion, to give to them an ornament [pe’er] instead of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). This verse likens the placement of ashes on one’s head to an ornament, and the term pe’er is traditionally interpreted as a reference to phylacteries.
נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְכוֹעָר בְּיוֹתֵר. אָמַר לוֹ: שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רַבִּי! וְלֹא הֶחְזִיר לוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: רֵיקָה, כַּמָּה מְכוֹעָר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ! שֶׁמָּא כׇּל בְּנֵי עִירֶךָ מְכוֹעָרִין כְּמוֹתְךָ? אָמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אֶלָּא לֵךְ וֶאֱמוֹר לָאוּמָּן שֶׁעֲשָׂאַנִי: ״כַּמָּה מְכוֹעָר כְּלִי זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ״. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁחָטָא, יָרַד מִן הַחֲמוֹר וְנִשְׁתַּטַּח לְפָנָיו, וְאָמַר לוֹ: נַעֲנֵיתִי לְךָ, מְחוֹל לִי! אָמַר לוֹ: אֵינִי מוֹחֵל לְךָ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ לָאוּמָּן שֶׁעֲשָׂאַנִי וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ: כַּמָּה מְכוֹעָר כְּלִי זֶה שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ.
He happened upon an exceedingly ugly person, who said to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, but Rabbi Elazar did not return his greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar said to him: Worthless [reika] person, how ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you? The man said to him: I do not know, but you should go and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. When Rabbi Elazar realized that he had sinned and insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, he descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said to the man: I have sinned against you; forgive me. The man said to him: I will not forgive you go until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made.
אָמַר לָהֶם: בִּשְׁבִילְכֶם הֲרֵינִי מוֹחֵל לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רָגִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. מִיָּד נִכְנַס רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְדָרַשׁ: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם רַךְ כְּקָנֶה וְאַל יְהֵא קָשֶׁה כְּאֶרֶז. וּלְפִיכָךְ זָכָה קָנֶה לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ קוּלְמוֹס לִכְתּוֹב בּוֹ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת.
He said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provided that he accepts upon himself not to become accustomed to behave like this. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, entered the study hall and taught: A person should always be soft like a reed and he should not be stiff like a cedar, as one who is proud like a cedar is likely to sin. And therefore, due to its gentle qualities, the reed merited that a quill is taken from it to write with it a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and mezuzot.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לְעוֹלָם אַל יַעֲמוֹד אָדָם בְּמָקוֹם סַכָּנָה וְיֹאמַר: עוֹשִׂין לִי נֵס, שֶׁמָּא אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ נֵס. וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר עוֹשִׂין לוֹ נֵס — מְנַכִּין לוֹ מִזְּכִיּוֹתָיו. אָמַר רַב חָנָן: מַאי קְרָא — דִּכְתִיב: ״קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכׇּל הָאֱמֶת״.
The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with this statement, as Rabbi Yannai said: A person should never stand in a place of danger and say: A miracle will be performed for me, and I will escape unharmed, lest a miracle is not performed for him. And if you say that a miracle will be performed for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rav Ḥanan said: What is the verse that alludes to this idea? As it is written: “I have become small from all the mercies and all the truth that You have showed Your servant” (Genesis 32:11). In other words, the more benevolence one receives from God, the more his merit is reduced.
מַאי הֲוָה עוֹבָדֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה? כִּי הָא דְּאִתְּמַר, שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא הִקְפַּדְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי, וְלֹא צָעַדְתִּי בִּפְנֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנִּי,
After recounting stories that reflect Rav Adda bar Ahava’s great merit, the Gemara asks: What were the exceptional deeds of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara reports that they are as it is stated: The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that the students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To what do you attribute your longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself; rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.
וְלֹא הִרְהַרְתִּי בִּמְבוֹאוֹת הַמְטוּנָּפוֹת, וְלֹא הָלַכְתִּי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלֹא תּוֹרָה וּבְלֹא תְּפִילִּין, וְלֹא יָשַׁנְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא שַׂשְׂתִּי בְּתַקָּלַת חֲבֵרַי, וְלֹא קָרָאתִי לַחֲבֵירִי בַּהֲכִינָתוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בַּחֲנִיכָתוֹ.
Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: And I did not think about matters of Torah in filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits without engaging in Torah and without donning phylacteries; and I would not fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and I would not rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and I would not call my colleague by his nickname. And some say that he said: I would not call my colleague by his derogatory family name.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא: לֵימָא לַן מָר מֵהָנֵי מִילֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא דַּהֲוָה עָבֵיד רַב הוּנָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּיַנְקוּתֵיהּ לָא דְּכִירְנָא, בְּסֵיבוּתֵיהּ דְּכִירְנָא. דְּכֹל יוֹמָא דְעֵיבָא הֲווֹ מַפְּקִין לֵיהּ בְּגוּהַרְקָא דְּדַהֲבָא, וְסָיַיר לַהּ לְכוּלַּהּ מָתָא. וְכֹל אֲשִׁיתָא דַּהֲווֹת רְעִיעֲתָא, הֲוָה סָתַר לַהּ. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְמָרַהּ — בָּנֵי לַהּ, וְאִי לָא אֶפְשָׁר — בָּנֵי לַהּ אִיהוּ מִדִּידֵיהּ.
§ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those fine deeds that Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not remember what he did in his youth, but the deeds of his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage [guharka], and he would survey the entire city. And he would command that every unstable wall be torn down, lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. If its owner was able to build another, Rav Huna would instruct him to rebuild it. And if he was unable to rebuild it, Rav Huna would build it himself with his own money.
וְכֹל פַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא הֲוָה מְשַׁדַּר שְׁלוּחָא לְשׁוּקָא, וְכֹל יַרְקָא דַּהֲוָה פָּיֵישׁ לְהוּ לְגִינָּאֵי, זַבֵּין לֵיהּ וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ לְנַהֲרָא. וְלִיתְּבֵיהּ לַעֲנִיִּים! זִמְנִין דְּסָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ וְלָא אָתוּ לְמִיזְבַּן. וְלִשְׁדְּיֵיהּ לִבְהֵמָה! קָסָבַר: מַאֲכַל אָדָם אֵין מַאֲכִילִין לִבְהֵמָה.
Rafram bar Pappa further relates: And every Shabbat eve, in the afternoon, Rav Huna would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners who sold their crops, and throw them into the river. The Gemara asks: But why did he throw out the vegetables? Let him give them to the poor. The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would sometimes rely on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, and they would not come to purchase any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: And let him throw them to the animals. The Gemara answers: He holds that human food may not be fed to animals, as this is a display of contempt for the food.
וְלָא לִיזְבְּנֵיהּ כְּלָל! נִמְצֵאתָ מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.
The Gemara objects: But if Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should not purchase the vegetables at all. The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, you would have been found to have caused a stumbling block for them in the future. If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them.
כִּי הֲוָה לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא דְאָסוּתָא, הֲוָה מָלֵי כּוּזָא (דְמַיָּא) [מִינֵּיהּ], וְתָלֵי לֵיהּ בְּסִיפָּא דְבֵיתָא, וְאָמַר: כׇּל דְּבָעֵי לֵיתֵי וְלִישְׁקוֹל. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִילְּתָא דְשִׁיבְתָּא הֲוָה גְּמִיר, וַהֲוָה מַנַּח כּוּזָא דְמַיָּא וְדָלֵי לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר: כׇּל דִּצְרִיךְ — לֵיתֵי וְלֵיעוּל דְּלָא לִסְתַּכַּן.
Another custom of Rav Huna was that when he had a new medicine, he would fill a water jug with the medicine and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take from this new medicine. And there are those say: He had a remedy against the demon Shivta that he knew by tradition, that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. And to this end, he would place a water jug and hang it by the door, saying: Anyone who needs, let him come to the house and wash his hands, so that he will not be in danger.
כִּי הֲוָה כָּרֵךְ רִיפְתָּא, הֲוָה פָּתַח לְבָבֵיהּ, וְאָמַר: כׇּל מַאן דִּצְרִיךְ לֵיתֵי וְלֵיכוֹל. אָמַר רָבָא: כּוּלְּהוּ מָצֵינָא מְקַיַּימְנָא, לְבַר מֵהָא דְּלָא מָצֵינָא לְמִיעְבַּד,
The Gemara further relates: When Rav Huna would eat bread, he would open the doors to his house, saying: Whoever needs, let him come in and eat. Rava said: I can fulfill all these customs of Rav Huna, except for this one, which I cannot do,
בְּסוּרָא הֲווֹת דְּבַרְתָּא, בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב לָא הֲווֹת דְּבַרְתָּא. סְבוּר מִינַּהּ, מִשּׁוּם זְכוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב דִּנְפִישׁ. אִיתְחֲזִי לְהוּ בְּחֶילְמָא: רַב דִּנְפִישָׁא זְכוּתֵיהּ טוּבָא — הָא מִילְּתָא זוּטְרָא לֵיהּ לְרַב. אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּמְשַׁיֵּיל מָרָא וּזְבִילָא לִקְבוּרָה.
The Gemara relates another story involving a plague: Once there was a plague of pestilence in Sura, but in the neighborhood of Rav there was no pestilence. The people therefore thought that this was due to Rav’s great merit. However, it was revealed to them in a dream that Rav’s merit was too great and this matter too small for the merit of Rav to be involved. Rather, his neighborhood was spared due to the acts of kindness of a certain man, who would lend his hoe [mara] and shovel [zevila] to prepare sites for burial.
בִּדְרוֹקֶרֶת הֲווֹת דְּלֵיקְתָּא, וּבְשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא לָא הֲווֹת דְּלֵיקְתָּא. סְבוּר מִינַּהּ, בִּזְכוּתָא דְּרַב הוּנָא דִּנְפִישׁ. אִיתְחֲזִי לְהוּ בְּחֶילְמָא: הַאי זוּטְרָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דִּמְחַמְּמָא תַּנּוּרָא וּמְשַׁיְּילָא לְשִׁיבָבוּתַיהּ.
The Gemara relates a similar incident. In Drokart there was a fire, but in the neighborhood of Rav Huna there was no fire. The people therefore thought that this was due to Rav Huna’s great merit. It was revealed to them in a dream that this matter was too small for the merit of Rav Huna to have played a role. Rather, it was due to a certain woman who heats her oven and lends it, i.e., the use of her oven, to her neighbors.
אַבָּא אוּמָּנָא הֲוָה אָתֵי לֵיהּ שְׁלָמָא מִמְּתִיבְתָּא דִּרְקִיעָא כֹּל יוֹמָא, וּלְאַבָּיֵי כֹּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְּשַׁבְּתָא, לְרָבָא כֹּל מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי. הֲוָה קָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּאַבָּא אוּמָּנָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא מָצֵית לְמִיעְבַּד כְּעוֹבָדֵיהּ.
§ Apropos the above stories that deal with the merits of ordinary people, the Gemara relates: Abba the Bloodletter would receive greetings from the yeshiva on High every day, and Abaye would receive these greetings every Shabbat eve, and Rava would receive greetings only once a year on Yom Kippur eve. Abaye was distressed due to Abba the Bloodletter, as he did not understand why Abba received greater honor than he did. They said to him: You are unable to perform what he does, and therefore you do not merit the same honor.
וּמַאי הֲווֹ עוֹבָדֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא אוּמָּנָא — דְּכִי הֲוָה עָבֵיד מִילְּתָא, הֲוָה מַחֵית גַּבְרֵי לְחוֹד וְנָשֵׁי לְחוֹד, וְאִית לֵיהּ לְבוּשָׁא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קַרְנָא דַּהֲווֹת בְּזִיעָא כִּי כוּסִילְתָּא. כִּי הֲווֹת אָתְיָא לֵיהּ אִיתְּתָא, הֲוָה מַלְבֵּישׁ לָהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִיסְתַּכַּל בָּהּ. וְאִית לֵיהּ דּוּכְתָּא דִּצְנִיעָא דְּשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל, דְּאִית לֵיהּ — שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ — לָא מִיכְּסִיף.
The Gemara asks: And what were these righteous deeds of Abba the Bloodletter? The Gemara explains that when he would perform a matter of bloodletting, he would bring in men separately from women, for reasons of modesty. And he had a special garment that had a slit in the place of the incision [kusilta] where the bloodletting instrument was inserted. When a woman came to him, he would have her dress in that garment, so that he would not see her exposed. And furthermore, he had a hidden place where he worked, where customers would place the coins [peshitei] that he would take as his fee. In this manner, one who had money would throw it there, while one who did not have money was not embarrassed.
כִּי הֲוָה אִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן, אַגְרָא מִינֵּיהּ לָא שָׁקֵיל. וּבָתַר דְּקָאֵי, יָהֵיב לֵיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַבְרִי נַפְשָׁךְ. יוֹמָא חַד שַׁדַּר אַבָּיֵי זוּגָא דְרַבָּנַן לְמִיבְדְּקֵיהּ. אוֹתְבִינְהוּ וְאֹכְלִינְהוּ וְאַשְׁקִינְהוּ וּמָךְ לְהוּ בִּיסְתַּרְקִי בְּלֵילְיָא.
When a Torah scholar came to him for bloodletting, he would take no pay from him, and after the scholar arose, Abba would give him money and say to him: Go and purchase food with this money to heal yourself, as it is important to eat healthy food after bloodletting. One day, Abaye sent a pair of Sages to investigate the extent of Abba the Bloodletter’s righteousness. Abba the Bloodletter sat them down, and gave them food to eat, and gave them something to drink. And at night he spread out mats [bistarkei] for them to sleep on.
אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי אֲתוֹ הָנָךְ תְּרֵי אַחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנָךְ נָמֵי בְּנֵי עָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי נִינְהוּ. אֲזַל לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי עוֹבָדַיְיכוּ? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִינָשֵׁי בָּדוֹחֵי אֲנַן, מְבַדְּחִינַן עֲצִיבֵי. אִי נָמֵי, כִּי חָזֵינַן בֵּי תְרֵי דְּאִית לְהוּ תִּיגְרָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, טָרְחִינַן וְעָבְדִינַן לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא.
In the meantime, two brothers came to the marketplace. Elijah said to Rabbi Beroka: These two also have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Beroka went over to the men and said to them: What is your occupation? They said to him: We are jesters, and we cheer up the depressed. Alternatively, when we see two people who have a quarrel between them, we strive to make peace. It is said that for this behavior one enjoys the profits of his actions in this world, and yet his reward is not diminished in the World-to-Come.
עַל כׇּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָּבוֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַל כׇּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָּבוֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר מַתְרִיעִין עָלֶיהָ, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִתְפַּלְּלִין עַל רוֹב הַטּוֹבָה.
§ The mishna further states that they sound the alarm on account of any trouble that should not befall the community, a euphemism for trouble that may befall the community, except for an overabundance of rain. The Sages taught in a baraita: For any trouble that should not befall the community, they sound the alarm for it, except for an overabundance of rain. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because one does not pray over an excess of good. Since rain is generally good for the world, it is not appropriate to pray for it to stop, even when it falls in excess.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין מִתְפַּלְּלִין עַל רוֹב הַטּוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָבִיאוּ אֶת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֶל בֵּית הָאוֹצָר וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי ״עַד בְּלִי דָּי״? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר רַב יוֹד: עַד שֶׁיִּבְלוּ שִׂפְתוֹתֵיכֶם מִלּוֹמַר ״דָּי״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that one does not pray over an excess of good? It is stated: “Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom, that there may be food in My house, and test Me now by this, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing that there shall be more than sufficiency” (Malachi 3:10). What is the meaning of the phrase: “That there shall be more than sufficiency [ad beli dai]”? Rami bar Ḥama said: It means that the abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu], similar to the word beli, from saying enough [dai]. In other words, even when a blessing is delivered in gross excess, one should not pray for it to cease, as the verse blesses the people with an excess.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר רַב יוֹד: וּבַגּוֹלָה, מַתְרִיעִין עָלֶיהָ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: שָׁנָה שֶׁגְּשָׁמֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין, אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר שׁוֹלְחִין לְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲמָד: תְּנוּ עֵינֵיכֶם בַּאֲחֵיכֶם שֶׁבַּגּוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בָּתֵּיהֶם קִבְרֵיהֶם.
Rami bar Rav Yud said: This is true in Eretz Yisrael, but in the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, they do sound the alarm over excessive rain. The reason is that Babylonia is in a low-lying region, where excessive rain poses a real danger. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: In a year whose rains are abundant, the members of the priestly watch in the Temple would send a message to the members of the non-priestly watch: Cast your eyes on your brothers in the Diaspora and have them in mind when you pray, so that their houses should not collapse from excessive rain and become their graves.
יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה אָזֵל בְּאוֹרְחָא, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה נָטַע חָרוּבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי, עַד כַּמָּה שְׁנִין טָעֵין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד שִׁבְעִין שְׁנִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ דְּחָיֵית שִׁבְעִין שְׁנִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַאי גַּבְרָא: עָלְמָא בְּחָרוּבָא אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ. כִּי הֵיכִי דִּשְׁתַלוּ לִי אֲבָהָתִי — שְׁתַלִי נָמֵי לִבְרָאִי.
One day, he was walking along the road when he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. Ḥoni said to him: This tree, after how many years will it bear fruit? The man said to him: It will not produce fruit until seventy years have passed. Ḥoni said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, that you expect to benefit from this tree? He said to him: That man himself found a world full of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants.
אֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ אֲמַר לְהוּ: בְּרֵיהּ דְּחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל מִי קַיָּים? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בְּרֵיהּ לֵיתֵאּ, בַּר בְּרֵיהּ אִיתֵאּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא חוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל. לָא הֵימְנוּהוּ. אֲזַל לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, שַׁמְעִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּקָאָמְרִי: נְהִירָן שְׁמַעְתָּתִין כְּבִשְׁנֵי חוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, דְּכִי הָוֵי עָיֵיל לְבֵית מִדְרְשָׁא — כֹּל קוּשְׁיָא דַּהֲווֹ לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן הֲוָה מְפָרֵק לְהוּ. אָמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא נִיהוּ, וְלָא הֵימְנוּהוּ, וְלָא עָבְדִי לֵיהּ יְקָרָא כִּדְמִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי, וּמִית. אָמַר רָבָא: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אוֹ חַבְרוּתָא אוֹ מִיתוּתָא.
Ḥoni went home and said to the members of the household: Is the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel alive? They said to him: His son is no longer with us, but his son’s son is alive. He said to them: I am Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. They did not believe him. He went to the study hall, where he heard the Sages say about one scholar: His halakhot are as enlightening and as clear as in the years of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, for when Ḥoni HaMe’aggel would enter the study hall he would resolve for the Sages any difficulty they had. Ḥoni said to them: I am he, but they did not believe him and did not pay him proper respect. Ḥoni became very upset, prayed for mercy, and died. Rava said: This explains the folk saying that people say: Either friendship or death, as one who has no friends is better off dead.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: יָדְעִינַן דְּמִיטְרָא מֵחֲמַת מָר הוּא דַּאֲתָא, אֶלָּא לֵימָא לַן מָר הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּתְמִיהָא לַן: מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי יָהֵיבְנָא לְמָר שְׁלָמָא לָא אַסְבַּר לַן מָר אַפֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׂכִיר יוֹם הֲוַאי, וְאָמֵינָא: לָא אֶיפַּגַּר. וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּרָא מָר צִיבֵי אַחַד כַּתְפֵּיהּ וּגְלִימָא אַחַד כַּתְפֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה הָיְתָה. לְהָכִי שְׁאַלִי, וּלְהָכִי לָא שְׁאַלִי.
They said to him: We know that the rain has come on the Master’s account. However, let the Master please say and explain to us these aspects of your behavior that are puzzling to us: What is the reason that when we greeted the Master, the Master did not return our greeting? He said to them: I am a day laborer, hired for the day, and I said to myself that I may not delay my work to answer you. They further inquired: And what is the reason that the Master carried the firewood on one shoulder and his cloak on the other shoulder? He said to them: It was a borrowed robe. I borrowed it for this purpose, to wear it, and I did not borrow it for that purpose, to place wood on it.
מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי כָּרֵיךְ מָר רִיפְתָּא לָא אֲמַר לַן ״אֵיתוֹ כְּרוּכוּ״? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא רִיפְתָּא, וְאָמֵינָא: לָא אַחְזֵיק בְּהוּ בְּרַבָּנַן טֵיבוּתָא בְּחִנָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא יְהֵיב מָר לְיָנוֹקָא קַשִּׁישָׁא חֲדָא רִיפְתָּא וּלְזוּטְרָא תְּרֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי — קָאֵי בְּבֵיתָא, וְהַאי — יָתֵיב בְּבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא.
The Sages were not done with their questions. What is the reason that when the Master ate bread, you did not say to us: Come and eat? He replied: Because there is not enough bread for guests, and I said to myself that I should not gain credit from the Sages for nothing, by offering you food I cannot serve you. They asked: What is the reason that the Master gave the older child one piece of bread and the younger child two? He said to them: This older child stays at home, and if he is hungry he can eat at any time, but this younger child sits and studies in the synagogue, and therefore he is hungrier.
וּמַאי טַעְמָא קְדֻים סְלוּק עֲנָנֵי מֵהָךְ זָוִיתָא דַּהֲווֹת קָיְימָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּמָר לַעֲנָנָא דִידֵיהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתְּתָא שְׁכִיחָא בְּבֵיתָא, וְיָהֲבָא רִיפְתָּא לַעֲנִיֵּי, וּמְקָרְבָא הֲנָיָיתַהּ. וַאֲנָא יָהֵיבְנָא זוּזָא, וְלָא מְקָרְבָא הֲנָיָיתֵיהּ. אִי נָמֵי: הָנְהוּ בִּירְיוֹנֵי דְּהָווּ בְּשִׁיבָבוּתַן, אֲנָא בָּעֵי רַחֲמֵי דְּלֵימוּתוּ, וְהִיא בָּעֲיָא רַחֲמֵי דְּלִיהְדְּרוּ בִּתְיוּבְתָּא [וַהֲדַרוּ].
The two Sages had one final set of queries for Abba Ḥilkiyya. And what is the reason that the clouds began to form on that side where the Master’s wife stood before your own side? He explained: Because my wife is frequently at home, and she gives bread to the poor, and therefore her provision of benefit to the needy is immediate, i.e., soon after the rains fall she is able to provide the needy with provisions. Accordingly, her prayers are answered without delay. In contrast, I give money to the poor, and consequently, the benefit of my gift is not immediate, i.e., it takes a lot of time before the rainfall results in my ability to give money to the poor. Alternatively, her prayers may have been answered first because when certain hooligans [biryonei] were living in our neighborhood, I prayed that they should die, but she prayed that they should repent. And indeed, they repented.
רַבִּי גְּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא וְלָא אֲתָא מִיטְרָא. נְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ אִילְפָא (וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אִילְפֵי), אֲמַר ״מַשִּׁיב הָרוּחַ״ וּנְשַׁב זִיקָא, ״מוֹרִיד הַגֶּשֶׁם״ וַאֲתָא מִיטְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי עוֹבָדָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּיַירְנָא בְּקוּסְטָא דְחִיקָא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חַמְרָא לְקִידּוּשָׁא וְאַבְדַּלְתָּא. טָרַחְנָא (וְאָתֵינָא) [וּמַיְיתֵינָא] חַמְרָא לְקִידּוּשָׁא וְאַבְדַּלְתָּא, וּמַפֵּיקְנָא לְהוּ יְדֵי חוֹבְתַיְיהוּ.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi declared a fast but rain did not come. Ilfa descended to lead the service before him, and some say it was Rabbi Ilfi. He recited: He Who makes the wind blow, and the wind indeed blew. He continued to recite: And Who makes the rain come, and subsequently, the rain came. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: What are your good deeds, in the merit of which your prayers are answered so speedily? He said to him: I live in an impoverished city, in which there is no wine for kiddush or havdala. I go to the effort of bringing the residents wine for kiddush and havdala, and I thereby enable them to fulfill their duty. In reward for this mitzva, my prayers for rain were answered.
רַב אִיקְּלַע לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא, גְּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא וְלָא אֲתָא מִיטְרָא. נְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ שְׁלִיחָא דְצִבּוּרָא, אֲמַר ״מַשִּׁיב הָרוּחַ״ וּנְשַׁב זִיקָא, אֲמַר ״מוֹרִיד הַגֶּשֶׁם״ וַאֲתָא מִיטְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי עוֹבָדָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַיקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי אֲנָא, וּמַקְרֵינָא לִבְנֵי עַנְיֵי כִּבְנֵי עַתִּירֵי. וְכֹל דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ — לָא שָׁקֵלְינָא מִינֵּיהּ מִידֵּי. וְאִית לִי פִּירָא דִכְווֹרֵי, וְכׇל מַאן דְּפָשַׁע מְשַׁחֵידְנָא לֵיהּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, וּמְסַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ וּמְפַיְּיסִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּאָתֵי וְקָרֵי.
The Gemara relates a similar incident. Rav happened to come to a certain place where he decreed a fast but rain did not come. The prayer leader descended to lead the service before him and recited: He Who makes the wind blow, and the wind blew. He continued and said: And Who makes the rain fall, and the rain came. Rav said to him: What are your good deeds? He said to him: I am a teacher of children, and I teach the Bible to the children of the poor as to the children of the rich, and if there is anyone who cannot pay, I do not take anything from him. And I have a fishpond, and any child who neglects his studies, I bribe him with the fish and calm him, and soothe him until he comes and reads.
אֶלָּא: אִם שְׁחוּנָה — תְּהֵא גְּשׁוּמָה וּטְלוּלָה. וְאַל יִכָּנֵס לְפָנֶיךָ תְּפִילַּת עוֹבְרֵי דְּרָכִים. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מְסַיֵּים מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: לָא יִעְדֵּי עָבֵיד שׁוּלְטָן מִדְּבֵית יְהוּדָה, וְאַל יְהוּ עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס זֶה מִזֶּה, וְלֹא לְעַם אַחֵר.
Rather, say that he recited the following: If the upcoming year is hot, may it also be rainy and moist with dew, lest the heat harm the crops. The High Priest would also pray: And let not the prayer of travelers enter Your presence. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, in the name of Rav Yehuda, concluded the wording of this prayer: May the rule of power not depart from the house of Judea. And may Your nation Israel not depend upon each other for sustenance, nor upon another nation. Instead, they should be sustained from the produce of their own land. Evidently, the High Priest’s prayer that God should not listen to the prayer of individual travelers was disregarded in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.
וּבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת וְחוֹלוֹת בַּכְּרָמִים. וּמָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרוֹת: בָּחוּר, שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה מָה אַתָּה בּוֹרֵר לָךְ. אַל תִּתֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַּנּוֹי, תֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַּמִּשְׁפָּחָה. ״שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא תִתְהַלָּל״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״תְּנוּ לָהּ מִפְּרִי יָדֶיהָ וִיהַלְלוּהָ בַשְּׁעָרִים מַעֲשֶׂיהָ״.
And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself for a wife. Do not set your eyes toward beauty, but set your eyes toward a good family, as the verse states: “Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30), and it further says: “Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:31).
כׇּל הַמְזַכֶּה אֶת הָרַבִּים — אֵין חֵטְא בָּא עַל יָדוֹ, וְכׇל הַמַּחְטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים — כִּמְעַט אֵין מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. כׇּל הַמְזַכֶּה אֶת הָרַבִּים — אֵין חֵטְא בָּא עַל יָדוֹ, מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הוּא בְּגֵיהִנָּם וְתַלְמִידָיו בְּגַן עֵדֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא תַעֲזוֹב נַפְשִׁי לִשְׁאוֹל לֹא תִתֵּן חֲסִידְךָ לִרְאוֹת שָׁחַת״. וְכׇל הַמַּחְטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים — אֵין מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הוּא בְּגַן עֵדֶן וְתַלְמִידָיו בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָדָם עָשׁוּק בְּדַם נָפֶשׁ עַד בּוֹר יָנוּס אַל יִתְמְכוּ בוֹ״.
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.
אֶחֱטָא וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר — אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עַל כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה בֵּין לֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה — יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר! אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, אַגַּב שָׁאנֵי.
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.
עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם וְכוּ׳. רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָבוּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹהִים״! מַאן אֱלֹהִים — דַּיָּינָא.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמַּקְנִיט אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְבָרִים — צָרִיךְ לְפַיְּיסוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּנִי אִם עָרַבְתָּ לְרֵעֶךָ תָּקַעְתָּ לַזָּר כַּפֶּיךָ נוֹקַשְׁתָּ בְאִמְרֵי פִיךָ עֲשֵׂה זֹאת אֵפוֹא בְּנִי וְהִנָּצֵל כִּי בָאתָ בְכַף רֵעֶךָ לֵךְ הִתְרַפֵּס וּרְהַב רֵעֶיךָ״. אִם מָמוֹן יֵשׁ בְּיָדְךָ — הַתֵּר לוֹ פִּסַּת יָד, וְאִם לָאו — הַרְבֵּה עָלָיו רֵיעִים.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמַּקְנִיט אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְבָרִים — צָרִיךְ לְפַיְּיסוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּנִי אִם עָרַבְתָּ לְרֵעֶךָ תָּקַעְתָּ לַזָּר כַּפֶּיךָ נוֹקַשְׁתָּ בְאִמְרֵי פִיךָ עֲשֵׂה זֹאת אֵפוֹא בְּנִי וְהִנָּצֵל כִּי בָאתָ בְכַף רֵעֶךָ לֵךְ הִתְרַפֵּס וּרְהַב רֵעֶיךָ״. אִם מָמוֹן יֵשׁ בְּיָדְךָ — הַתֵּר לוֹ פִּסַּת יָד, וְאִם לָאו — הַרְבֵּה עָלָיו רֵיעִים.
§ 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.
רַבִּי זֵירָא כִּי הֲוָה לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא בַּהֲדֵי אִינִישׁ, הֲוָה חָלֵיף וְתָנֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ וּמַמְצֵי לֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנֵיתֵי וְנִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמֶשׁ בִּטַּלְתֶּם תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְעַכְשָׁיו בִּטַּלְתֶּם תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן בָּאתָ? אָמַר לוֹ: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״, מִיָּד: ״וַיָּלֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵמֶק״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, i.e., during the afternoon, you neglected the afternoon daily offering due to the impending battle, and now, at night, you have neglected Torah study, and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua said to him: For which of these sins have you come? He said to him: I have come now, indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua immediately determined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: “And Joshua lodged that night” (Joshua 8:9) “in the midst of the valley [ha’emek]” (Joshua 8:13), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said:
מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלָּן בְּעוּמְקָהּ שֶׁל הֲלָכָה. וְאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אוּנְיָא: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהַקְרָבַת תְּמִידִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״!
This teaches that he spent the night in the depths [be’umeka] of halakha, i.e., that he spent the night studying Torah with the Jewish people. And Rav Shmuel bar Unya said: Torah study is greater than sacrificing the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have come now” (Joshua 5:14), indicating that the angel came to rebuke Joshua for neglecting Torah study and not for neglecting the daily offering. Consequently, how did the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine that the Temple service is more important than Torah study?
תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּמֵת מִצְוָה — מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, מִדְּתַנְיָא: מְבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת מֵת, וּלְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה. עֲבוֹדָה וּמֵת מִצְוָה — מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, מִ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״.
Furthermore, it is obvious that if one must choose between Torah study and tending to a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], the task of burying the met mitzva takes precedence. This is derived from that which is taught in a baraita: One cancels his Torah study to bring out a corpse for burial, and to join a wedding procession and bring in the bride. Similarly, if one must choose between the Temple service and tending to a met mitzva, tending to the met mitzva takes precedence, based upon the halakha derived from the term “or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7).
אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא״. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״. לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.
You said: He shall not become impure; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah. One might have thought: Just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. The verse states: “Or for his sister”; he may not become impure for his sister, as someone else can attend to her burial, but he does become impure for a met mitzva.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה וּמֵת מִצְוָה הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה עֲדִיף מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, דְּאָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
On the basis of these premises, Rava raised a dilemma: If one must choose between reading the Megilla and tending to a met mitzva, which of them takes precedence? Does reading the Megilla take precedence due to the value of publicizing the miracle, or perhaps burying the met mitzva takes precedence due to the value of preserving human dignity? After he raised the dilemma, Rava then resolved it on his own and ruled that attending to a met mitzva takes precedence, as the Master said: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. Consequently, it certainly overrides the duty to read the Megilla, despite the fact that reading the Megilla publicizes the miracle.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מוּתָּר לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בָּרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עוֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע וְשׁוֹמְרֵי תוֹרָה יִתְגָּרוּ בָם״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר מָתוּן אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בָּרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְאִם לְחָשְׁךָ אָדָם לוֹמַר ״אַל תִּתְחַר בַּמְּרֵעִים וְאַל תְּקַנֵּא בְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה״ — מִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ אוֹמֵר כֵּן.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “They that forsake the Torah praise the wicked; but they who keep the Torah contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4)? And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, and if a person whispers to you to say that this is not so, relying on the verse: “Contend not with evildoers, nor be envious against the workers of iniquity” (Psalms 37:1), know that only one whose heart strikes him with pangs of conscience over sins that he committed says this.
אֶלָּא: ״אַל תִּתְחַר בַּמְּרֵעִים״ — לִהְיוֹת כַּמְּרֵעִים, ״וְאַל תְּקַנֵּא בְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה״ — לִהְיוֹת כְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה. וְאוֹמֵר: ״אַל יְקַנֵּא לִבְּךָ בַּחַטָּאִים וְגוֹ׳!
Rather, the true meaning of that verse is: “Contend not with evildoers,” to be like the evildoers; “nor be envious against the workers of iniquity,” to be like the workers of iniquity. And it says elsewhere: “Let not your heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day” (Proverbs 23:17). In this context, to be envious of sinners means to desire to be like them. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Dostai indicate that one is permitted to provoke the wicked, against the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי דִידֵיהּ, הָא בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא.
The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as it can be understood that this, Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to his personal matters, while that, the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Dostai that it is permitted to provoke them, is referring to matters of Heaven, i.e., religious matters.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּמִילֵּי דִידֵיהּ. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּצַדִּיק גָּמוּר, הָא בְּצַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּמוּר. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לָמָּה תַבִּיט בּוֹגְדִים תַּחֲרִישׁ בְּבַלַּע רָשָׁע צַדִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ״, צַדִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ — בּוֹלֵעַ, צַדִּיק גָּמוּר — אֵינוֹ בּוֹלֵעַ.
And if you wish, say: Both this statement and that statement are stated with regard to his own affairs, and still it is not difficult. This statement, that it is permitted to provoke the wicked, applies to a completely righteous individual; that statement, that one may not provoke them, applies to an individual who is not completely righteous. As Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do you look upon them that deal treacherously, and remain silent when the wicked devours the man that is more righteous than he” (Habakkuk 1:13)? This verse indicates that the wicked devours one who is more righteous than he; however, he does not devour one who is completely righteous.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ שָׁאנֵי.
And if you wish, say instead: When the hour is smiling upon him, i.e., when the wicked individual is enjoying good fortune, it is different. He is receiving divine assistance, and even the completely righteous should not provoke him.
כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל כַּלָּה שֶׁהִיא צְנוּעָה בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ — זוֹכָה וְיוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים. מְנָלַן? מִתָּמָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה כִּי כִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ״, מִשּׁוּם דְּכִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ ״וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה״?
The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face.
רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״לְאָדָם שֶׁטּוֹב לְפָנָיו נָתַן חׇכְמָה וְדַעַת וְשִׂמְחָה״ — זֶה מָרְדֳּכַי הַצַּדִּיק, ״וְלַחוֹטֶא נָתַן עִנְיָן לֶאֱסוֹף וְלִכְנוֹס״ — זֶה הָמָן, ״לָתֵת לְטוֹב לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים״ — זֶה מָרְדְּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּשֶׂם אֶסְתֵּר אֶת מׇרְדֳּכַי עַל בֵּית הָמָן״.
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here. The verse states with regard to God’s reward to the righteous: “He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). The Gemara explains that this verse is referring to the righteous Mordecai. With regard to the next part of the verse: “But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up,” this is referring to Haman. The conclusion of the verse states: “That he may give it to one who is good before God” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). This is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2).
״אַבְרָם הוּא אַבְרָהָם״ — הוּא בְּצִדְקוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. ״הוּא אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״ — הֵן בְּצִדְקָן מִתְּחִילָּתָן וְעַד סוֹפָן. ״וְדָוִד הוּא הַקָּטָן״ — הוּא בְּקַטְנוּתוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ עַד סוֹפוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּקַטְנוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, כָּךְ בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה.
The Gemara continues: The word hu is also used to recognize sustained righteousness. “Abram, this is [hu] Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as he remained in his righteousness from beginning to end. Similarly, “This is [hu] Aaron and Moses” (Exodus 6:26); they remained in their righteousness from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Similarly, with respect to David: “And David, this was [hu] the youngest” (I Samuel 17:14), indicates that he remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth, when he was still an ordinary individual, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom.
״אַבְרָם הוּא אַבְרָהָם״ — הוּא בְּצִדְקוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. ״הוּא אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״ — הֵן בְּצִדְקָן מִתְּחִילָּתָן וְעַד סוֹפָן. ״וְדָוִד הוּא הַקָּטָן״ — הוּא בְּקַטְנוּתוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ עַד סוֹפוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּקַטְנוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, כָּךְ בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה.
The Gemara continues: The word hu is also used to recognize sustained righteousness. “Abram, this is [hu] Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as he remained in his righteousness from beginning to end. Similarly, “This is [hu] Aaron and Moses” (Exodus 6:26); they remained in their righteousness from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Similarly, with respect to David: “And David, this was [hu] the youngest” (I Samuel 17:14), indicates that he remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth, when he was still an ordinary individual, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom.
״יָלְדָה״? וְהָא רַבּוֹיֵי רַבִּיתֵיהּ! לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ.
The Gemara understands that all the names referred to in the verse as children of Pharaoh’s daughter refer to Moses, as it will soon explain. The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather, it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.
״יָלְדָה״? וְהָא רַבּוֹיֵי רַבִּיתֵיהּ! לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ.
The Gemara understands that all the names referred to in the verse as children of Pharaoh’s daughter refer to Moses, as it will soon explain. The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather, it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.
״בָּעֶרֶב הִיא בָאָה וּבַבֹּקֶר הִיא שָׁבָה״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִגְּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לָמַדְנוּ שִׁבְחוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּיּוֹם.
The verse states: “In the evening she went, and in the morning she returned” (Esther 2:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the implicit criticism of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, who cohabited with many women, we have incidentally learned his praise as well, that he would not engage in sexual relations during the day, but in a more modest fashion at night.
אֶלָּא, אֲמַר לַהּ: מִינַּסְבָא לִי? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִין, מִיהוּ אַבָּא רַמָּאָה הוּא וְלָא יָכְלַתְּ לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: אָחִיו אֲנָא בְּרַמָּאוּת. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: וּמִי שְׁרֵי לְצַדִּיקֵי לְסַגּוֹיֵי בְּרַמָּיוּתָא? אֲמַר לַהּ, אִין: ״עִם נָבָר תִּתָּבָר וְעִם עִקֵּשׁ תִּתַּפָּל״.
Rather, it must be understood that when Jacob met Rachel, he said to her: Will you marry me? She said to him: Yes, but my father, Laban, is a swindler, and you will not be able to outwit him. Jacob alleviated her fears, as he said to her that he is her father’s brother, referring not to their familial affiliation but rather to his ability to deal with her father on his level, as if to say: I am his brother in deception. She said to him: But is it really permitted for the righteous to be involved in deception? He said to her: Yes, it is permitted when dealing with deceptive individuals, as the verse states: “With the pure you will show yourself pure, and with the perverse you will show yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27), indicating that one should deal with others in the manner appropriate for their personality.
Abigail, when departing from David, asks him to remember her in the future. She knows that her current scoundrel of a husband, Naval, will die, and she wants David to marry her later on. Abigail, married but already securing a future marriage, is like a woman who can talk and spin wool at the same time. She was a good multi-tasker. Another folk-saying illustrating this is that even though the goose walks with its head down, its eyes look far off.
״וַיַּגִּידוּ לְמׇרְדֳּכָי אֵת דִּבְרֵי אֶסְתֵּר״, וְאִילּוּ אִיהוּ לָא אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ. מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מְשִׁיבִין עַל הַקַּלְקָלָה.
The verse states: “And they told Esther’s words to Mordecai” (Esther 4:12), but he, Hathach himself, did not go to tell him directly. The Gemara explains: From here we see that one does not bring back a sad report. If one has nothing positive to say, it is best for him to remain silent. This explains why Hathach himself did not report the information to Mordecai, and Esther’s words had to be delivered by other messengers.
״לֵךְ כְּנוֹס אֶת כׇּל הַיְּהוּדִים״ וְגוֹ׳ עַד ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא כַדָּת״, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שֶׁלֹּא כַּדָּת הָיָה, שֶׁבְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם עַד עַכְשָׁיו — בְּאוֹנֶס, וְעַכְשָׁיו — בְּרָצוֹן. ״וְכַאֲשֶׁר אָבַדְתִּי אָבָדְתִּי״ — כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָבַדְתִּי מִבֵּית אַבָּא, כָּךְ אוֹבַד מִמְּךָ.
Esther sent a message to Mordecai: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night and day; I also and my maidens will fast likewise, and so will I go in to the king, not according to the custom” (Esther 4:16). Rabbi Abba said: It will not be according to my usual custom, for every day until now when I submitted myself to Ahasuerus it was under compulsion, but now I will be submitting myself to him of my own free will. And Esther further said: “And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16). What she meant was: Just as I was lost to my father’s house ever since I was brought here, so too, shall I be lost to you, for after voluntarily having relations with Ahasuerus, I shall be forever forbidden to you.
When Esther was sleeping with Ahashverosh out of compulsion, she was not forbidden to Mordecai her husband. But if she now goes to Ahashverosh willingly, and he sleeps with her, she will be prohibited to Mordecai because she is an adulteress.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי בִּרְכַּת הֶדְיוֹט קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵי גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר בֵּרְכוּם שְׁנֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, וְנִתְקַיְּימָה בָּהֶן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: דָּוִד וְדָנִיֵּאל. דָּוִד — דְּבָרְכֵיהּ אֲרַוְנָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״. דָּנִיאֵל — דְּבָרְכֵיהּ דָּרְיָוֶשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלָהָךְ דִּי אַנְתְּ פָּלַח לֵיהּ בִּתְדִירָא הוּא יְשֵׁיזְבִינָּךְ״.
Apropos a statement that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said, the Gemara records other such statements: And Rabbi Elazar further said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: One should never regard the blessing of an ordinary person [hedyot] as light in your eyes, as two of the great men of their generations received blessings from ordinary people and those blessings were fulfilled in them. And they were David and Daniel. David, for Araunah blessed him, as it is written: “And Araunah said to the king, May the Lord your God accept you” (II Samuel 24:23), and it was fulfilled. Daniel, for Darius blessed him, as it is written: “Your God Whom you serve continually, He will rescue you” (Daniel 6:17), and this too was fulfilled when Daniel was saved from the lions’ den.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֵל תְּהִי קִלְלַת הֶדְיוֹט קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ קִלֵּל אֶת שָׂרָה ״הִנֵּה הוּא לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם״, וְנִתְקַיֵּים בְּזַרְעָהּ: ״וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו״.
And Rabbi Elazar further said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: One should not regard the curse of an ordinary person as light in your eyes, for Abimelech cursed Sarah, saying: “Behold, it is to you a covering of the eyes to all that are with you” (Genesis 20:16), and indeed this was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see” (Genesis 27:1). Abimelech’s curse of covered eyes was fulfilled through her son Isaac’s blindness.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ מֵבִיא גְּאוּלָּה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מׇרְדֳּכָי״.
And Rabbi Elazar further said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever reports a saying in the name of he who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and this eventually brought redemption, as Mordecai was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the miraculous salvation.
רַבָּה אָמַר: ״לִפְנֵי שֶׁבֶר גָּאוֹן״. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״בְּחוּמָּם אָשִׁית אֶת מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם וְגוֹ׳״. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן חַזְיָא אֶסְתֵּר וַעֲבַדָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּכוּלְּהוּ תַּנָּאֵי וּכְכוּלְּהוּ אָמוֹרָאֵי.
Rabba says: Esther invited Haman to her banquet in order to fulfill that which is stated: “Pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18), which indicates that in order to destroy the wicked, one must first bring them to pride. It can be understood according to Abaye and Rava, who both say that she invited Haman in order to fulfill the verse: “When they are heated, I will make feasts for them, and I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep” (Jeremiah 51:39). The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh once happened upon Elijah the Prophet and said to him: In accordance with whose understanding did Esther see fit to act in this manner? What was the true reason behind her invitation? He, Elijah, said to him: Esther was motivated by all the reasons previously mentioned and did so for all the reasons previously stated by the tanna’im and all the reasons stated by the amora’im.
״וַיְסַפֵּר לָהֶם הָמָן אֶת כְּבוֹד עׇשְׁרוֹ וְרוֹב בָּנָיו״, וְכַמָּה רוֹב בָּנָיו? אָמַר רַב, שְׁלֹשִׁים: עֲשָׂרָה מֵתוּ, וַעֲשָׂרָה נִתְלוּ, וַעֲשָׂרָה מְחַזְּרִין עַל הַפְּתָחִים.
The verse states: “And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, and the multitude of his sons” (Esther 5:11). The Gemara asks: And how many sons did he in fact have that are referred to as “the multitude of his sons”? Rav said: There were thirty sons; ten of them died in childhood, ten of them were hanged as recorded in the book of Esther, and ten survived and were forced to beg at other people’s doors.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהַצָּלַת נְפָשׁוֹת, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ לְמׇרְדֳּכַי בָּתַר אַרְבְּעָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּתַר חַמְשָׁה. מֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּאוּ עִם זְרוּבָּבֶל יֵשׁוּעַ נְחֶמְיָה שְׂרָיָה רְעֵלָיָה מׇרְדֳּכַי בִּלְשָׁן״, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתִיב: ״הַבָּאִים עִם זְרוּבָּבֶל יֵשׁוּעַ נְחֶמְיָה עֲזַרְיָה רַעַמְיָה נַחֲמָנִי מׇרְדֳּכַי בִּלְשָׁן״.
Rav Yosef said: Studying Torah is greater than saving lives, as initially, when listing the Jewish leaders who came to Eretz Yisrael, Mordecai was mentioned after four other people, but at the end he was listed after five. This is taken to indicate that his involvement in governmental affairs instead of in Torah study lowered his stature one notch. The Gemara proves this: At first it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Ezra 2:2); but in the end in a later list it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahmani, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Nehemiah 7:7).
This section again notes the conflict between political and religious authority. The verse from Esther seems to hint that Mordecai was not accepted by all of his brothers. The midrash explains that after he became second to the king, some of his fellow rabbis (Mordecai is understood by the midrash to be a “rabbi”) separated from him. The time spent working in politics would have taken them away from what they really wanted to be doing—studying Torah.
The same message is hinted at in R. Joseph’s midrash. R. Joseph says that studying Torah is more important than even saving lives, as Mordecai did for the Jews in Shushan and the rest of the kingdom. At first, when he was just studying Torah, Mordecai was the fifth in the list of those with Zerubabel. But when he stopped studying Torah to save lives, he was demoted to sixth.
I should note that I read this counterintuitive midrash as being purposefully provocative, fighting against what most people surely think. The obvious position is that saving lives takes precedence over study. After all, one cannot study when one is dead. There is no doubt that this is true. But the midrash is trying to say that we should not so simply assume that politicians are superior to religious leaders. At times we need to state that studying Torah takes precedence over everything else, even the saving of a life. In other words, while I wouldn’t want a real law to be shaped by this sentiment, i.e. I wouldn’t want to see someone studying instead of actually saving a life, I do believe that as a value statement, this resonates with me.
The same message is hinted at in R. Joseph’s midrash. R. Joseph says that studying Torah is more important than even saving lives, as Mordecai did for the Jews in Shushan and the rest of the kingdom. At first, when he was just studying Torah, Mordecai was the fifth in the list of those with Zerubabel. But when he stopped studying Torah to save lives, he was demoted to sixth.
I should note that I read this counterintuitive midrash as being purposefully provocative, fighting against what most people surely think. The obvious position is that saving lives takes precedence over study. After all, one cannot study when one is dead. There is no doubt that this is true. But the midrash is trying to say that we should not so simply assume that politicians are superior to religious leaders. At times we need to state that studying Torah takes precedence over everything else, even the saving of a life. In other words, while I wouldn’t want a real law to be shaped by this sentiment, i.e. I wouldn’t want to see someone studying instead of actually saving a life, I do believe that as a value statement, this resonates with me.
אָמַר רַב וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִבִּנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁכׇּל זְמַן שֶׁבָּרוּךְ בֶּן נֵרִיָּה קַיָּים — לֹא הִנִּיחוֹ עֶזְרָא וְעָלָה.
Rav said, and some say that Rav Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah is greater and more important than building the Temple. A proof of this is that for as long as Baruch ben Neriah was alive in Babylonia, Ezra, who was his disciple, did not leave him and go up to Eretz Yisrael to build the Temple.
אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִכִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, שֶׁכׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁהָיָה יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ בְּבֵית עֵבֶר לֹא נֶעֱנַשׁ, דְּאָמַר מָר:
Rabba said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah is greater and more important than honoring one’s father and mother, and a proof of this is that for all those years that our father Jacob spent in the house of Eber and studied Torah there he was not punished for having neglected to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s parents. As the Master said:
וּמְנָלַן דְּלָא אִיעֲנַשׁ — דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצָא יוֹסֵף שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מֵאָבִיו עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ מֵאָבִיו, דְּיַעֲקֹב תְּלָתִין וְשִׁיתָּא הָוְיָין! אֶלָּא: אַרְבֵּיסַר דַּהֲוָה בְּבֵית עֵבֶר לָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ.
And from where do we derive that Jacob was not punished for the fourteen years that he was in the house of Eber, during which time he failed to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s parents? As it is taught in a baraita: It turns out that Joseph was away from his father for twenty-two years, just as Jacob our father was away from his own father for that same period of time. According to the previous calculation, however, the baraita is difficult, as Jacob was absent for thirty-six years. Rather, conclude from here that the fourteen years that he was in the house of Eber are not counted, as he was not punished for them.
סוֹף סוֹף דְּבֵית לָבָן עֶשְׂרִין שְׁנִין הָוְיָין! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאִשְׁתַּהִי בְּאוֹרְחָא תַּרְתֵּין שְׁנִין, דְּתַנְיָא: יָצָא מֵאֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם וּבָא לוֹ לְסֻכּוֹת, וְעָשָׂה שָׁם שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכּוֹתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכּוֹת״, וּבְבֵית אֵל עָשָׂה שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְהִקְרִיב זְבָחִים.
The Gemara raises an objection: But ultimately, Jacob was in Laban’s house for only twenty years. Why, then, is he faulted for being away from his father for twenty-two years? Rather, he was punished because on his journey back from Aram-naharaim he tarried another two years before returning home to his parents, as it is taught in a baraita: Jacob left Aram-naharaim and came to Sukkot, and spent eighteen months there, as it is stated: “And Jacob journeyed to Sukkot, built himself a house, and made booths [sukkot] for his cattle” (Genesis 33:17). The Gemara understands this verse to mean that first he made booths [Sukkot], to live in during the summer, and then he built a house in the winter, and afterward he again made booths [sukkot] during the next summer, indicating that he must have been there for eighteen months. He then was in Bethel for six months, and he brought offerings, totaling two years in all. In this way, all the various calculations of years are reconciled.
וּמָה רָאוּ לוֹמַר בִּרְכַּת הַשָּׁנִים בִּתְשִׁיעִית? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי: כְּנֶגֶד מַפְקִיעֵי שְׁעָרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁבוֹר זְרוֹעַ רָשָׁע״, וְדָוִד כִּי אַמְרַהּ — בִּתְשִׁיעִית אַמְרַהּ.
And why did they see fit to institute that one says the blessing of bountiful years as the ninth blessing? Rabbi Alexandri said: This blessing was instituted in reference to those who raise the prices of food. We pray for rain so that the price of produce will not rise as a result of shortages, as it is written: “Break the arm of the wicked” (Psalms 10:15), referring to the wicked, who practice deception and extort the poor. And when David expressed this request, he expressed it in the ninth psalm. Although today it is considered the tenth psalm, the first and second psalms are actually counted as one, and therefore this is the ninth psalm. Therefore, the blessing of the years was fixed as the ninth blessing.
וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּלוּ הַפּוֹשְׁעִים — מִתְרוֹמֶמֶת קֶרֶן צַדִּיקִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל קַרְנֵי רְשָׁעִים אֲגַדֵּעַ תְּרוֹמַמְנָה קַרְנוֹת צַדִּיק״. וְכוֹלֵל גֵּירֵי הַצֶּדֶק עִם הַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ פְּנֵי זָקֵן״ — וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר״.
And once the heretics cease to be, the horn, i.e., the glory, of the righteous will be exalted, as it is written: “All the horns of the wicked will I cut off; but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted” (Psalms 75:11). Therefore, after the blessing of the heretics, one says the blessing about the righteous. And he includes the righteous converts along with the righteous, as it is stated: “You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the elder” (Leviticus 19:32), and adjacent to this it is stated: “And if a stranger sojourns with you” (Leviticus 19:33). An “elder” is one with Torah wisdom and a “stranger” is one who has converted to Judaism.
במגילה בפרק הקורא (מגילה י"ח, א') אמר רבי אליעזר מאי דכתיב מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן המספר בשבחו של הקב"ה יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם שנאמר היסופר לו כי אדבר אם אמר איש כי יבולע, דרש ר' יהודא איש כפר נבוריא ואמרו לה איש כפר גבור חיל מאי דכתיב לך דומיה תהלה סמא דכולא משתוקא. כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא מלה בסלע משתוקא בתרין. ופירוש זה כי מי שמספר בשבחו של מקום הוא עולה אל מדריגה שאינה בעולם, והוא ממדריגה שאינו שייך לאדם לכך הוא נעקר מן העולם, כי יש לאדם להיות נשאר במקומו ובמדריגתו, וכאשר יוצא מן מעלתו שיש לאדם בעוה"ז נעקר מן העולם הזה שמקומו בעוה"ז. ודבר זה רמז בכתוב לך דומיה תהלה ול"ך במספרו חמשים. וכן דומיה שהוא דום ודו"ם הוא במספרו חמשים, ויש לו לדום מלשבח יה, כי השבחים היתרים שהאדם משבח להקב"ה הם משער החמשים אשר אין השער הזה נמסר לעולם הזה ולכך לך דומיה תהלה. וכן אמר הכתוב מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו, כלו' מי זה הוא שהוא יכול להתדבק במדריגת החמשים שהוא מסולק מן העולם הזה, ומ"י במספר חמשים כלו' מי שעולה עד המדריגה הזאת, וזה שאמר ישמיע כל תהלתו כ"ל במספרו חמשים כי שבחו הוא משער החמשים שאין לו תכלית וקץ, וכך מ"י במספר חמשים כלו' מי הוא זה אשר יש לו דביקות אל שער החמשים, ולכך המספר בשבחו של מקום יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם. ואין הדבר הזה דומה למה שאמרו בפרק אין עומדין (ברכות ל"ג, ב') ההוא דנחית קמיה וכו'. דבר זה אינו כי מה שאמר כאן שאסור לספר בשבחו של מקום היינו אחר התפלה שנראה שלא בא רק לספר בשבחו של מקום, ודבר זה אסור מטעם שאמרנו כי שבחו של מקום אין העוה"ז מגיע אליו כלל כי אין העולם משער החמשים הלכך הוא נעקר מן העולם. אבל בתוך התפלה מותר שלא בא לספר שבחו רק בשביל תפלתו, ואמרו (שם ל"ב א') לעולם יספר בשבחו של מקום ואח"כ יתפלל, כי עיקר התפלה מה שיש לעולם עלה והאדם הוא העלול אל העלה ובזה הוא מספר שבח הש"י שהוא ית' עלתו והעלה הוא התחלתו והוא ית' תכליתו. ולכך תקנו ג' ראשונות שהם שבח המקום בתחלה וג' אחרונות שהם שבח הש"י בסוף, לומר כי הוא ית' שהוא העלה הוא התחלתו והוא ית' תכלית האדם. ולכך מה שהוא ית' נותן לו צרכו, אין זה בשביל כי האדם נחשב לדבר מה, זה אינו רק בשביל בוראו שהוא ית' התחלתו ותכליתו והכל הוא למענו ית' ומצד הזה ראוי שיתן לו הש"י צרכו, ולכך מספר בשבח התחלתו בתחלה ובסוף מספר בשבחו ג"כ בשביל שהוא ית' ג"כ תכליתו והעלול הוא באמצע. והבן הדברים ותמצא ברור מה שג' ראשונות ושלש אחרונות הם שבח המקום ובאמצע הוא צרכו של העלול, וא"א לפרש יותר. ועל פי זה יש שני קרבנות ביום תמיד של שחר ותמיד של בין הערביים לומר כי הוא ית' התחלה אל האדם והוא ית' תכליתו. ולכך עיקר התפלה שנתקנה נגד התמידים הוא עם דמדומי חמה בבקר ובערב, לומר כי הוא ית' התחלת האדם והוא ית' תכלית האדם וצרכי האדם באמצע דהיינו כל היום, ואחר שהוא ית' התחלתו ותכליתו ראוי שיהיו צרכיו נעשים מן הש"י והבן זה. ומפני כי היה מרבה בשבח המקום בודאי דבר זה אין לעשות, רק יאמר ה' שבחים שאלו השבחים הם מגיעים עד שער החמשים, אשר רמז במה שאמר מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו. וזה כי ז' שבחים כנגד ז' שערים משערי בינה שנבראו בעולם שכל אחד כולל ז', כנגד ימי הספירה שהם מ"ט ימים, והם ז' שבועות שבכל שבוע ז' ימים, והשבח השמיני הוא כנגד שער החמישים שאין בו ספירה כלל ולא נמסר למשה. וכנגד זה עצמו תקנו ח' שבחים ביהללוך וח' שבחים ביתברך נגד שער החמשים. ולכך היו נוהגים לומר יתברך אמן, מפני כי הז' שבחים בפני עצמן והח' הוא נבדל מהם ואין מחובר למנין ז':
The Gemara in Masechet Megilla says: R. Eleazar said: What is the meaning of the verse, Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, or make all his praise to be heard? (Psalms 106) For whom is it fitting to express the mighty acts of the Lord? For one who can make all his praise to be heard. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: One who descants upon the praises of the Holy One, blessed be He, to excess is uprooted from the world, as it says, Shall it be told to him that I should speak? Should a man [try to] say, surely he would be swallowed up. (Job 37:20) R. Judah a man of Kefar Gibboraya, or, as some say, of Kefar Gibbor Hayil, gave the following homily: What is meant by the verse, For thee silence is praise? (Psalms 65) The best medicine of all is silence. When R. Dimi came, he said: In the West they say: A word is worth a Sela’, silence two Sela's. (Megillah 18a, Soncino translation).
דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר גִּבּוֹרַיָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אִישׁ כְּפַר גִּבּוֹר חַיִל: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לְךָ דוּמִיָּה תְהִלָּה״? סַמָּא דְּכוֹלָּה — מַשְׁתּוּקָא. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: מִלָּה — בְּסֶלַע, מַשְׁתּוּקָא — בִּתְרֵין.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say he was a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The best remedy of all is silence, i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say an adage: If a word is worth one sela, silence is worth two.
דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר גִּבּוֹרַיָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אִישׁ כְּפַר גִּבּוֹר חַיִל: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לְךָ דוּמִיָּה תְהִלָּה״? סַמָּא דְּכוֹלָּה — מַשְׁתּוּקָא. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אֲמַר: אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: מִלָּה — בְּסֶלַע, מַשְׁתּוּקָא — בִּתְרֵין.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say he was a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The best remedy of all is silence, i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say an adage: If a word is worth one sela, silence is worth two.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִנַּיִן לָרַב שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי מִטָּה וְיִשְׁנֶה לְתַלְמִידוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי״.
And Rabbi Abbahu also said: From where is it derived that the teacher should not sit on a couch and teach his disciple while he is sitting on the ground? It is as it is stated: “But as for you, stand here with Me,” which indicates that the teacher and his disciples should be in the same position.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לֹא הָיוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מְעוּמָּד. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, יָרַד חוֹלִי לָעוֹלָם וְהָיוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה מְיוּשָּׁב. וְהַיְינוּ דִּתְנַן: מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בָּטַל כְּבוֹד תּוֹרָה.
With regard to Torah study while standing, the Sages taught: From the days of Moses until the time of Rabban Gamliel, they would study Torah only while standing, as learning from one’s teacher is comparable to receiving the Torah at Sinai, during which the Jewish people stood. When Rabban Gamliel died, weakness descended to the world, and they would study Torah while sitting. And this is as we learned in a mishna (Sota 49a): When Rabban Gamliel died, honor for the Torah ceased, as standing while learning is an expression of honor for the Torah.
אָמַר רָבָא, רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה — מְשׁוּבָּח, שֵׁנִי שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה — מְשׁוּבָּח, שְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה — מְשׁוּבָּח.
Rava said: Since ten verses must be read, if the first of the three readers called to the Torah read four verses, he is praiseworthy; if the second one read four verses, he is praiseworthy; and if the third one read four verses, he is praiseworthy.
רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה מְשׁוּבָּח — דִּתְנַן: בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין שֶׁבָּהֶן תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, וְהָיָה כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן אב״ג, לֵידַע אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן נִתְרְמָה רִאשׁוֹן, לְהַקְרִיב מִמֶּנָּה רִאשׁוֹן — שֶׁמִּצְוָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן.
Rava explains: If the first of the three readers called to the Torah read four verses, he is praiseworthy because the first in a series is privileged, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8a): One removes the funds from the Temple treasury chamber, in order to use them for purchasing communal offerings and attending to other needs of the Temple, with three large baskets, each measuring three se’a. On the baskets is written, respectively, alef, beit, gimmel, in order to know which of them was removed first, in order to sacrifice offerings purchased with money from that basket first, as it is a mitzva to use the money collected with the first basket before the money collected with the others.
אֶמְצָעִי שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה מְשׁוּבָּח — דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶל מוּל פְּנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה יָאִירוּ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּצַדֵּד פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי נֵר מַעֲרָבִי, וְנֵר מַעֲרָבִי כְּלַפֵּי שְׁכִינָה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִכָּאן שֶׁאֶמְצָעִי מְשׁוּבָּח.
If the middle one read four verses, he is also praiseworthy, as the middle position is also dignified, as it is taught in a baraita: “The seven lamps shall give light in front of the candelabrum” (Numbers 8:2); this teaches that the priest turns the front of each lamp toward the western lamp of the candelabrum, i.e., the middle lamp, and the western lamp faces toward the Divine Presence. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is derived from here that the middle one is especially praiseworthy.
וְאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא אַרְבָּעָה מְשׁוּבָּח — מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. רַב פָּפָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא דַּאֲבִי גוֹבָר וְקָרָא רִאשׁוֹן אַרְבָּעָה, וְשַׁבְּחֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא.
And if the last one called to the Torah read four verses, he too is praiseworthy, due to the principle that one elevates to a higher level of sanctity and does not downgrade. If the last reader reads more verses than did the first two, this is an elevation in sanctity. The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa happened to come to the synagogue of the place called Avi Gover, and the first person called to the Torah read four verses, and Rav Pappa praised him.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי, כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לִיפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קוּם לָךְ [וְגוֹ׳]״.
And if you wish, say a different reason as to why Rav did not fall on his face: An important person is different, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is not permitted to fall on his face in public unless he knows that he will be answered like Joshua bin Nun in his time, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Joshua: Get up; why do you lie upon your face?” (Joshua 7:10). It is a disgrace for a distinguished person to fall on his face and have his prayers unanswered. Consequently, Rav did not prostrate himself in public.
וְהָא (קָא) גְּרַמָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיחַ אָדָם דְּבָרִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם גָּדוֹל הֵטִיחַ דְּבָרִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וְאִיטְּלַע וּמַנּוּ — לֵוִי. הָא וְהָא גְּרַמָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Was it this that caused Levi to become lame? Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A person should never speak impertinently toward God on High, as a great man once spoke impertinently toward God on High and he became lame? And who was he? Levi. The reason Levi became lame was because of the way he spoke to God (see Ta’anit 25a), not due to having performed kidda. The Gemara answers: Both this and that caused Levi to become lame. Since he spoke impertinently toward God, he was worthy of punishment, and he therefore suffered an injury while exerting himself to perform kidda.
מְדַלְּגִין בַּנָּבִיא וְאֵין מְדַלְּגִין בַּתּוֹרָה. וְעַד כַּמָּה הוּא מְדַלֵּג? עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסוֹק הַמְתוּרְגְּמָן.
One may skip from one place to another while reading the Prophets, but one may not skip from one place to another while reading the Torah. How far may he skip? As far as he can, provided that the translator will not conclude his translation while the reader is still rolling the scroll to the new location. The reader may not cause the congregation to wait for him after the translator has finished, as that would be disrespectful to the congregation.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם כָּבוֹד. רַבָּה בַּר שִׁימִי אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְאִינְּצוֹיֵי.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the one who reads the haftara is honored with these other roles? Rav Pappa said: It is due to a desire to grant him honor. Since even minors are qualified to read the haftara, it was considered an insult for a person to be called up to read the haftara rather than be called up as one of those needed to read the Torah. Since he was willing to serve in this role, he is granted other, more honorable roles in the synagogue. Rabba bar Shimi said a different reason: It is due to a concern that they will come to quarrel, as the individual who read the haftara will quarrel with the individual honored to lead the congregation in prayer.
The mishnah we learned in yesterday’s section listed all sorts of synagogue roles that the one who reads the Haftorah also fulfills (see yesterday’s mishnah). R. Papa says that this is to compensate him for receiving the lesser honor of reading the haftorah. Reading the haftorah is not as great of an honor as reading the Torah. Therefore, to compensate the one who agrees to do so, we give him other honors.
Rabbah bar Shimi says that there would be arguments between the haftorah reader and others—why should I read Haftorah while you get to be the shaliah tzibbur (prayer leader)? It seems that in Talmudic times this may have also been a paid position, making it all the more understandable why he would argue. Therefore, they designated the one who reads the Haftorah to be the shaliah tzibbur as well.
The Talmud, as it often does, asks what the practical difference is between the two explanations of the mishnah. The practical difference is where the shaliah tzibbur is not paid. In such a case, the one who receives the haftorah would not argue over receiving the honor. Therefore, according to Rabbah bar Shimi’s reasoning, the honor could be given to another person. But R. Papa would say that he should still give it to the same person, to compensate him for the lesser honor of reading the Haftorah.
Rabbah bar Shimi says that there would be arguments between the haftorah reader and others—why should I read Haftorah while you get to be the shaliah tzibbur (prayer leader)? It seems that in Talmudic times this may have also been a paid position, making it all the more understandable why he would argue. Therefore, they designated the one who reads the Haftorah to be the shaliah tzibbur as well.
The Talmud, as it often does, asks what the practical difference is between the two explanations of the mishnah. The practical difference is where the shaliah tzibbur is not paid. In such a case, the one who receives the haftorah would not argue over receiving the honor. Therefore, according to Rabbah bar Shimi’s reasoning, the honor could be given to another person. But R. Papa would say that he should still give it to the same person, to compensate him for the lesser honor of reading the Haftorah.
The mishnah said that if the child read the Haftorah his father or teacher acts as shaliah tzibbur in his place. The Talmud now evaluates the above dispute in light of this line of the Mishnah. If we were concerned about quarrels, are kids really going to quarrel over not receiving these honors?
But if we say the reason is to show him respect, do we really need to show a child respect? He should be happy with whatever he gets.
If you say that he should give his father or teacher the honors in order to show respect to them, we could say the same thing about his father or teacher quarrelling with another shaliah tzibbur. Thus in the end both reasons work with this line in the Mishnah. If the child receives the haftorah, we give the other honors to his father or teacher either to honor them, or so that they don’t fight with someone else who received the honor.
But if we say the reason is to show him respect, do we really need to show a child respect? He should be happy with whatever he gets.
If you say that he should give his father or teacher the honors in order to show respect to them, we could say the same thing about his father or teacher quarrelling with another shaliah tzibbur. Thus in the end both reasons work with this line in the Mishnah. If the child receives the haftorah, we give the other honors to his father or teacher either to honor them, or so that they don’t fight with someone else who received the honor.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר: אֵינִי עוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה בִּצְבוּעִין — אַף בִּלְבָנִים לֹא יַעֲבוֹר. בְּסַנְדָּל אֵינִי עוֹבֵר — אַף יָחֵף לֹא יַעֲבוֹר.
MISHNA: One who says: I will not pass before the ark to lead the prayer service in colored garments, may not pass before the ark to lead the prayer service even in white garments. There is concern that one who insists on wearing clothing of a specific color during his prayers is a heretic and therefore unfit to lead the service. Similarly, if one says: I will not pass before the ark wearing sandals, he may not pass before it even barefoot, as he is not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Sages.
מַתְנִי׳ מַעֲשֵׂה רְאוּבֵן — נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה תָמָר — נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה עֵגֶל הָרִאשׁוֹן — נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם, וְהַשֵּׁנִי — נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים, מַעֲשֵׂה דָוִד וְאַמְנוֹן — נִקְרָאִין וְלֹא מִתַּרְגְּמִין.
MISHNA: The incident of Reuben, about which it says: “And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine” (Genesis 35:22), is read from the Torah in public but not translated, so that the uneducated not come to denigrate Reuben. The incident of Tamar (Genesis, chapter 38) is read in public and also translated. The first report of the incident of the Golden Calf, i.e., the Torah’s account of the incident itself (Exodus 32:1–20), is read and translated, but the second narrative, i.e., Aaron’s report to Moses of what had taken place (Exodus 32:21–24) is read but not translated. The verses constituting the Priestly Benediction (Numbers 6:24–26) and the incident of David and Amnon (II Samuel, chapter 13) are read, but not translated.
מַתְנִי׳ מַעֲשֵׂה רְאוּבֵן — נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה תָמָר — נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם. מַעֲשֵׂה עֵגֶל הָרִאשׁוֹן — נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם, וְהַשֵּׁנִי — נִקְרָא וְלֹא מִתַּרְגֵּם. בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים, מַעֲשֵׂה דָוִד וְאַמְנוֹן — נִקְרָאִין וְלֹא מִתַּרְגְּמִין.
MISHNA: The incident of Reuben, about which it says: “And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine” (Genesis 35:22), is read from the Torah in public but not translated, so that the uneducated not come to denigrate Reuben. The incident of Tamar (Genesis, chapter 38) is read in public and also translated. The first report of the incident of the Golden Calf, i.e., the Torah’s account of the incident itself (Exodus 32:1–20), is read and translated, but the second narrative, i.e., Aaron’s report to Moses of what had taken place (Exodus 32:21–24) is read but not translated. The verses constituting the Priestly Benediction (Numbers 6:24–26) and the incident of David and Amnon (II Samuel, chapter 13) are read, but not translated.
Section one: Reuven sleeps with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22). This story is not translated in order not to shame Reuven.
Section two: Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her (see Genesis 38). This story is read and translated because it is actually to Judah’s credit. When he discovers that he has committed a wrong (vs. 26), he doesn’t try to hide his crime, as embarrassing as it might be. Note that Judah serves as a foil for Reuven. Reuven intentionally commits a crime, so we must hide it from the public. Judah accidentally commits a crime and then confesses, so we make public the entire story.
Section three: The first part of the golden calf story is from Exodus 32:1-20. This part is translated either because Israel does receive atonement, or in order so that the congregation will learn from their mistakes. In verse 21 Moses questions and accuses Aaron. In order not to embarrass Aaron, this section is not translated.
Section four: The version of this mishnah in good manuscripts says that these sections are neither read nor translated. The priestly blessing is not read, perhaps because it is a regular part of the prayer service. According to the version of the mishan in the Talmud, these verses are read but not translated. The Talmud explains that they are not translated because one of the verses says, “May God show favor to you” and people might think that God shows favor in judgment and doesn’t judge justly.
The story of David and Bathsheva (II Samuel 11) is not read as a haftarah because it is embarrassing to David.
In the story of Amnon (II Samuel 13), Amnon rapes Tamar and then wants to abandon her. He eventually is killed by Absolom, David’s other son. This is also quite embarrassing to David and to his house.
Section five: We don’t read the description of the chariot contained in Ezekiel, chapter one, as a haftarah because ordinary people are not supposed to study this mystical chapter. However, Rabbi Judah allows this.
Section six: Rabbi Eliezer prohibits reading Ezekiel 16 as a haftarah because its content is simply too graphic. Read the chapter for yourself to get an idea of its disturbing content.
Section two: Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her (see Genesis 38). This story is read and translated because it is actually to Judah’s credit. When he discovers that he has committed a wrong (vs. 26), he doesn’t try to hide his crime, as embarrassing as it might be. Note that Judah serves as a foil for Reuven. Reuven intentionally commits a crime, so we must hide it from the public. Judah accidentally commits a crime and then confesses, so we make public the entire story.
Section three: The first part of the golden calf story is from Exodus 32:1-20. This part is translated either because Israel does receive atonement, or in order so that the congregation will learn from their mistakes. In verse 21 Moses questions and accuses Aaron. In order not to embarrass Aaron, this section is not translated.
Section four: The version of this mishnah in good manuscripts says that these sections are neither read nor translated. The priestly blessing is not read, perhaps because it is a regular part of the prayer service. According to the version of the mishan in the Talmud, these verses are read but not translated. The Talmud explains that they are not translated because one of the verses says, “May God show favor to you” and people might think that God shows favor in judgment and doesn’t judge justly.
The story of David and Bathsheva (II Samuel 11) is not read as a haftarah because it is embarrassing to David.
In the story of Amnon (II Samuel 13), Amnon rapes Tamar and then wants to abandon her. He eventually is killed by Absolom, David’s other son. This is also quite embarrassing to David and to his house.
Section five: We don’t read the description of the chariot contained in Ezekiel, chapter one, as a haftarah because ordinary people are not supposed to study this mystical chapter. However, Rabbi Judah allows this.
Section six: Rabbi Eliezer prohibits reading Ezekiel 16 as a haftarah because its content is simply too graphic. Read the chapter for yourself to get an idea of its disturbing content.
אַזְהָרוֹת וָעוֹנָשִׁין נִקְרִין וּמִתַּרְגְּמִין. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָתוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִיִּרְאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Tosefta continues: The warnings and punishments [onashin], alluded to in the first nun of the mnemonic mentioned above, are read and translated. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that if this section is read aloud, people will come to act out of fear and keep the mitzvot due to the fear of punishment rather than love of God, therefore the Tosefta teaches us that this is not a concern.
אַזְהָרוֹת וָעוֹנָשִׁין נִקְרִין וּמִתַּרְגְּמִין. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָתוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִיִּרְאָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Tosefta continues: The warnings and punishments [onashin], alluded to in the first nun of the mnemonic mentioned above, are read and translated. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that if this section is read aloud, people will come to act out of fear and keep the mitzvot due to the fear of punishment rather than love of God, therefore the Tosefta teaches us that this is not a concern.
״הוֹדַע אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶת תּוֹעֲבוֹתֶיהָ״ נִקְרָא וּמִתַּרְגֵּם. פְּשִׁיטָא! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה קוֹרֵא לְמַעְלָה מֵרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר ״הוֹדַע אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶת תּוֹעֲבוֹתֶיהָ״. אָמַר לוֹ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה בּוֹדֵק בְּתוֹעֲבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם צֵא וּבְדוֹק בְּתוֹעֲבוֹת אִמֶּךָ. בָּדְקוּ אַחֲרָיו וּמָצְאוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֶץ פְּסוּל.
The Tosefta continues: The section of: “Make known [hoda] to Jerusalem her abominations” (Ezekiel 16:2) is read and translated. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: This is needed to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who held that this chapter may not be read as a haftara, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident with regard to a certain man who was reading the haftara in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer, and he read the section of: “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations.” Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Before you examine the abominations of Jerusalem, go and examine the abominations of your own mother. The Gemara relates that they examined his lineage and found him to have a stain of illegitimacy. His mother had engaged in illicit sexual relations, and therefore he was of questionable lineage.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בִּתְשׁוּבוֹתָיו, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ תְּשׁוּבָה שֶׁהֱשִׁיבוֹ אַהֲרֹן לְמֹשֶׁה פָּקְרוּ הַמְעַרְעֲרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה״.
With regard to Aaron’s account, the Gemara cites that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A person should always be careful in the way he formulates his responses, as sometimes the explanation that a person provides for his actions is worse than the original action itself, as, for example, based on Aaron’s response to Moses, the skeptics renounced their religious beliefs. It is stated in Aaron’s response: “And I cast it into the fire and this calf came forth” (Exodus 32:24). This formulation implies that the calf came from the fire by itself, suggesting that it had divine power and substance.
The first line of the priestly blessing is “May God show favor to you” (this word can be translated in other ways, such as “May God lift you up.”) This is somewhat controversial—a judge is not supposed to favor one of his constituents. Therefore, the word is not translated.
There are a few places in the Bible where euphemisms have been introduced into the text. The word “yishagelnah” is a coarse way of saying “have sex.” It is replaced with “lie with her.” “Ba’afolim” is a coarse word for hemorrhoids. “Hiryonim” means dung, but “divyonim” is a word for something that comes from doves. In II Kings 18:27 more delicate words for feces and urine are used. “Lemoza’ot” is a gentler word for latrines.
Joshua b. Korha says that we read the actual word “lamahara’ot” because it is in description of idolatry and we can use coarse words when referring to idolatry.
Joshua b. Korha says that we read the actual word “lamahara’ot” because it is in description of idolatry and we can use coarse words when referring to idolatry.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַמִּקְרָאוֹת הַכְּתוּבִין בַּתּוֹרָה לִגְנַאי — קוֹרִין אוֹתָן לְשֶׁבַח, כְּגוֹן: ״יִשְׁגָּלֶנָּה״ — יִשְׁכָּבֶנָּה, ״בַּעֲפוֹלִים״ — בַּטְּחוֹרִים, ״חִרְיוֹנִים״ — דִּבְיוֹנִים, ״לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת חוֹרֵיהֶם וְלִשְׁתּוֹת אֶת מֵימֵי שִׁינֵּיהֶם״ — לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת צוֹאָתָם וְלִשְׁתּוֹת אֶת מֵימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶם.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: All of the verses that are written in the Torah in a coarse manner are read in a refined manner. For example, the term “shall lie with her [yishgalena]” (Deuteronomy 28:30) is read as though it said yishkavena, which is a more refined term. The term “with hemorrhoids [bafolim]” (Deuteronomy 28:27) is read bateḥorim. The term “doves’ dung [ḥiryonim]” (II Kings 6:25) is read divyonim. The phrase “to eat their own excrement [ḥoreihem] and drink their own urine [meimei shineihem]” (II Kings 18:27) is read with more delicate terms: To eat their own excrement [tzo’atam] and drink their own urine [meimei ragleihem].
״לְמַחֲרָאוֹת״ — לְמוֹצָאוֹת, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: ״לְמַחֲרָאוֹת״ כִּשְׁמָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא גְּנַאי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
The term “into latrines [lemoḥra’ot]” (II Kings 10:27) is read as the more refined lemotza’ot. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Lemoḥara’ot is read as it is written because it is used here as an expression of contempt for idol worship, and it is therefore permissible to use an indelicate term.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל לֵיצָנוּתָא אֲסִירָא, בַּר מִלֵּיצָנוּתָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — דְּשַׁרְיָא. דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּרַע בֵּל קֹרֵס נְבוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״קָרְסוּ כָרְעוּ יַחְדָּיו לֹא יָכְלוּ מַלֵּט מַשָּׂא וְגוֹ׳״. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״לְעֶגְלוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן יָגוּרוּ שְׁכַן שׁוֹמְרוֹן כִּי אָבַל עָלָיו עַמּוֹ וּכְמָרָיו עָלָיו יָגִילוּ עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כִּי גָלָה מִמֶּנּוּ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״כְּבוֹדוֹ״, אֶלָּא ״כְּבֵידוֹ״.
Similarly, Rav Naḥman said: All mockery and obscenity is forbidden except for mockery of idol worship, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel bows down, Nevo stoops” (Isaiah 46:1). The prophet mocks these idols by describing them as crouching in order to defecate. Additionally, it is written: “They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden” (Isaiah 46:2). Rabbi Yannai said: This principle that one is permitted to mock idol worship is derived from here: “The inhabitants of Samaria shall be in dread for the calves of Beth-aven; for its people shall mourn over it, and its priests shall tremble for it, for its glory, because it is departed from it” (Hosea 10:5). Do not read it is as “its glory [kevodo],” rather read it as its burden [keveido], meaning that it is unable to restrain itself from defecating.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לְגוֹי: שִׁקְלֵיהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאַנְּחֵיהּ בְּשִׁין תָּיו שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי מַאן דִּסְנֵי שׁוּמְעָנֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְבַזּוֹיֵיהּ בְּגִימֶל וְשִׁין, הַאי מַאן דְּשַׁפִּיר שׁוּמְעָנֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי לְשַׁבּוֹחֵיהּ, וּמַאן דְּשַׁבְּחֵיהּ — יָנוּחוּ לוֹ בְּרָכוֹת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ.
Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: It is permitted for a Jew to say to a gentile: Take your idol and put it in your shin tav, i.e., shet, buttocks. Rav Ashi said: One whose reputation is tarnished, i.e., he is known as a philanderer, it is permitted to humiliate him by calling him gimmel sin, an acronym for girta sarya, son of a putrid harlot. One whose reputation is commendable, it is permitted to publicly praise him, and one who praises him, blessings will rest upon his head.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִישְׁבַּק אִינָשׁ גּוּלְפָּא וּמַשְׁכָּא בְּאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ.
Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: מִטְפְּחוֹת סְפָרִים שֶׁבָּלוּ — עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן תַּכְרִיכִין לְמֵת מִצְוָה, וְזוֹ הִיא גְּנִיזָתָן.
Mar Zutra said: With regard to wrapping cloths of Torah scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and this is their most appropriate manner for being interred.
(וְאָמַר) רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מִבֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא לְבֵי רַבָּנַן — שְׁרֵי, מִבֵּי רַבָּנַן לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא — אֲסִיר. וְרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא. אָמַר רַב אַחָא:
§ And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: To convert a building from a synagogue into a study hall is permitted, but from a study hall into a synagogue is prohibited, as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. Rav Aḥa said:
כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת — מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
It stands to reason to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is permitted for a synagogue to be made into a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that the opinion of Rav Pappi is correct.
דָּרַשׁ בַּר קַפָּרָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׂרֹף אֶת בֵּית ה׳ וְאֶת בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת כׇּל בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם וְאֶת כׇּל בֵּית גָּדוֹל שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ״. ״בֵּית ה׳״ — זֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. ״בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ״ — אֵלּוּ פַּלְטֵרִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ. ״וְאֵת כׇּל בָּתֵּי יְרוּשָׁלִַם״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעָן. ״וְאֶת כׇּל בֵּית גָּדוֹל שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ״ — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: מְקוֹם שֶׁמְּגַדְּלִין בּוֹ תּוֹרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: מְקוֹם שֶׁמְּגַדְּלִין בּוֹ תְּפִלָּה.
§ Bar Kappara interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burnt with fire” (II Kings 25:9)? He explained: “The house of the Lord”; this is the Holy Temple. “The king’s house”; these are the king’s palaces [palterin]. “And all the houses of Jerusalem”; as understood in its literal sense. With regard to the final phrase: “And every great house he burnt with fire,” Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about the meaning of “great house”: One of them said: It is referring to a place where the Torah is made great, i.e., the study hall; and the other one said: It is referring to a place where prayer is made great, i.e., the synagogue.
מַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״ה׳ חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּפִלָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״סַפְּרָה נָּא הַגְּדוֹלוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלִישָׁע״, וֶאֱלִישָׁע דַּעֲבַד — בְּרַחֲמֵי הוּא דַּעֲבַד.
The Gemara explains their respective opinions: The one who said that the reference is to where the Torah is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes Torah study as great, as it is written: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). And the one who said that the reference is to where prayer is made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes prayer as great, as it is written: “Tell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done” (II Kings 8:4), and that which Elisha did, i.e., restored a boy to life, he did through prayer.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֵין מוֹכְרִין סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A Torah scroll may be sold only if the seller needs the money in order to study Torah or to marry a woman.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תּוֹרָה בְּתוֹרָה שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי תַּלְמוּד, שֶׁהַתַּלְמוּד מֵבִיא לִידֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. אִשָּׁה נָמֵי: ״לָא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״, אֲבָל תּוֹרָה בְּתוֹרָה — לָא.
Learn from this baraita that exchanging one entity of Torah, i.e., a Torah scroll, for another entity of Torah, i.e., Torah study, seems well, and by extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps Torah study is different, as the study of Torah leads to action, i.e., the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and perhaps it is only due to its great importance of Torah study that it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll for it. Similarly, marrying a woman is also of utmost importance, as it is stated with regard to Creation: “He created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). This indicates that marrying and having children fulfills a primary goal of Creation. But selling an old Torah in order to buy a new Torah might not be permitted.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹ. יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל וּמָכַר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה אוֹ בִּתּוֹ — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם.
On the same topic, the Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell a Torah scroll, even if he does not need it. Furthermore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even if a person has nothing to eat, and out of his need he sold a Torah scroll or he sold his daughter to be a maidservant, he never sees a sign of blessing from the proceeds of either sale. Clearly, it is never appropriate to sell a Torah scroll for any purpose.
בפרק בני העיר (מגילה כ"ז) אמרו שאלו תלמידיו את ר' זכאי, במה הארכת ימים? אמר להם: מימי לא השתנתי בתוך ד' אמות של תפלה ולא כניתי שם לחבירי, ולא בטלתי קידוש היום. אימא זקנה היתה לי פעם אחת מכרה כיפה שבראשה והביאה לי קידוש היום.
In the chapter "Bnei HaIr" (Megilah 27b): "Rabbi Zakkai was asked by his disciples: 'in virtue of what have you merited such long life?' He replied: Never in my life have I made water within four cubits of a place where prayer is said, nor have I called my fellow by a nickname, nor have I missed making Kiddush on the [Sabbath] day. I had an old mother who once sold her headdress so as to bring me [wine for] the Kiddush".
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מוֹכְרִין בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת אֶלָּא עַל תְּנַאי, שֶׁאִם יִרְצוּ יַחְזִירוּהוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ מִמְכַּר עוֹלָם, חוּץ מֵאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים: לְמֶרְחָץ, וּלְבוּרְסְקִי, לִטְבִילָה, וּלְבֵית הַמַּיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מוֹכְרִין אוֹתָהּ לְשֵׁם חָצֵר, וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ — מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה יַעֲשֶׂה.
MISHNA: They may sell a synagogue only with a stipulation that if the sellers so desire it, the buyers will return it to them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They may sell a synagogue with a permanent sale for any usage, except the following four things, which would be an affront to the synagogue’s previous sanctity: For a bathhouse, where people stand undressed; or for a tannery [burseki], due to the foul smell; for immersion, i.e., to be used as a ritual bath, where people also stand undressed; or for a lavatory. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may sell a synagogue for the generic purpose of serving as a courtyard, and then the buyer may then do with it as he wishes, even if that is one of the above four purposes.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי זַכַּאי: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא הִשְׁתַּנְתִּי מַיִם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁל תְּפִלָּה, וְלֹא כִּנִּיתִי שֵׁם לַחֲבֵירִי, וְלֹא בִּיטַּלְתִּי קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם. אִמָּא זְקֵינָה הָיְתָה לִי, פַּעַם אַחַת מָכְרָה כִּפָּה שֶׁבְּרֹאשָׁהּ וְהֵבִיאָה לִי קִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם.
The Gemara presents the first incident: Rabbi Zakkai was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never urinated within four cubits of a place that had been used for prayer. Nor did I ever call my fellow by a nickname. And I never neglected the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat over wine. I was meticulous about this mitzva to the extent that I had an elderly mother, and once, when I did not have wine, she sold the kerchief that was on her head, and from the proceeds she brought me wine upon which to do the mitzva of sanctifying the day.
תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁמֵּתָה, הַנִּיחָה לוֹ שְׁלוֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי יַיִן. כְּשֶׁמֵּת הוּא, הִנִּיחַ לְבָנָיו שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים גַּרְבֵי יַיִן.
It was taught concerning Rabbi Zakkai: When his mother died, she left him three hundred barrels of wine. When he died, he left his sons three thousand barrels of wine. Since they were so meticulous in the mitzva of sanctifying the day of Shabbat with wine, God rewarded them with wealth and an abundance of wine.
רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה אָסַר רִיתָא וְקָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אָמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר: לֵיהּ לָא הֲוָה לִי קִידּוּשָׁא, וּמַשְׁכַּנְתֵּיהּ לְהֶמְיָינַאי וְאֵתַאי בֵּיהּ קִידּוּשָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּתִיטּוּם בְּשִׁירָאֵי.
In a related incident, it once happened that Rav Huna was girded with a piece of straw [rita] and was standing before Rav. Rav said to him: What is this? Why are you dressed in this way? He said to him: I had no wine for sanctifying the day of Shabbat, so I pawned my belt [hemyanai], and with the proceeds I brought wine for sanctifying the day. Rav said to him: May it be God’s will that you be enveloped in silk [shira’ei] in reward for such dedication.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא עָשִׂיתִי קַפֶּנְדַּרְיָא לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְלֹא פָּסַעְתִּי עַל רָאשֵׁי עַם קָדוֹשׁ, וְלֹא נָשָׂאתִי כַּפַּי בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה.
The Gemara discusses the second occasion where a Sage explained his longevity: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never made a shortcut through a synagogue.Nor did I ever stride over the heads of the sacred people, i.e., I never stepped over people sitting in the study hall in order to reach my place, so as not to appear scornful of them. And I never raised my hands in the Priestly Benediction without reciting a blessing beforehand.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי פְּרִידָא: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא קְדָמַנִי אָדָם לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ,
On the third occasion, Rabbi Perida was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, no person ever arrived before me to the study hall, as I was always the first to arrive.
וְלֹא בֵּרַכְתִּי לִפְנֵי כֹהֵן, וְלֹא אָכַלְתִּי מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ.
And I never recited Grace after Meals in the presence of a priest, but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. And I never ate from an animal whose priestly portions, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, had not already been set aside.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה: בַּמֶּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא נִתְכַּבַּדְתִּי בִּקְלוֹן חֲבֵרִי, וְלֹא עָלְתָה עַל מִטָּתִי קִלְלַת חֲבֵרִי, וּוַתְּרָן בְּמָמוֹנִי הָיִיתִי.
The Gemara discusses the fourth Sage who was blessed with longevity: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I never attained veneration at the expense of my fellow’s degradation. Nor did my fellow’s curse ever go up with me upon my bed. If ever I offended someone, I made sure to appease him that day. Therefore, when I went to bed I knew that no one had any grievances against me. And I was always openhanded with my money.
לֹא נִתְכַּבַּדְתִּי בִּקְלוֹן חֲבֵרִי — כִּי הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא דָּרֵי מָרָא אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ. אֲתָא רַב חָנָא בַּר חֲנִילַאי וְקָא דָרֵי מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי רְגִילַתְּ דְּדָרֵית בְּמָאתָיךְ — דְּרִי, וְאִי לָא, אִתְיַיקּוֹרֵי אֲנָא בְּזִילוּתָא דִּידָךְ לָא נִיחָא לִי.
The Gemara clarifies the meaning of his statement: Rabbi Neḥunya said: I never attained veneration at the expense of my fellow’s denigration. This is referring to conduct such as that of Rav Huna, who was carrying a hoe over his shoulder as he returned from his work. Rav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai came and, out of respect for his teacher, took the hoe from him to carry it for him. Rav Huna said to him: If you are accustomed to carry such objects in your own city, you may carry it; but if not, then for me to be venerated through your denigration is not pleasing for me.
וְלֹא עָלְתָה עַל מִטָּתִי קִלְלַת חֲבֵרִי — כִּי הָא דְּמַר זוּטְרָא כִּי הֲוָה סָלֵיק לְפוּרְיֵיהּ, אֲמַר: שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְכׇל מַאן דְּצַעֲרָן.
Rabbi Neḥunya also said: Nor did I ever allow the resentment caused by my fellow’s curse to go up with me upon my bed. This is referring to conduct such as that of Mar Zutra. When he would go to bed at night, he would first say: I forgive anyone who has vexed me.
וּוַתְּרָן בְּמָמוֹנִי הָיִיתִי — דְּאָמַר מָר: אִיּוֹב וַותְּרָן בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ הֲוָה, שֶׁהָיָה מַנִּיחַ פְּרוּטָה לַחֶנְוָנִי מִמָּמוֹנֵיהּ.
Lastly, Rabbi Neḥunya said: And I was always openhanded with my money. This is referring to conduct such as that which the Master said: Job was openhanded with his money, as he would always leave at least a peruta of his money with the shopkeeper. He never demanded the change from his transactions.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִיָּמַי לֹא קִבַּלְתִּי מַתָּנוֹת, וְלֹא עָמַדְתִּי עַל מִדּוֹתַי, וּוַתְּרָן בְּמָמוֹנִי הָיִיתִי.
With regard to the original question, Rabbi Neḥunya said to him: In all my days I never accepted gifts. Nor was I ever inflexible by exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged me. And I was always openhanded with my money.
The first thing that R. Nehuniah did to live a long life was to refuse presents, which here seem to be like bribes. R. Elazar would not accept presents from the Patriarch’s house, for he was afraid they were in essence bribes. He would not even go over there when invited lest by benefiting from them he become indebted to them. These are ethics from which our politicians could certainly learn.
וְלֹא עָמַדְתִּי עַל מִדּוֹתַי — דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַמַּעֲבִיר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו — מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנּוּ כׇּל פְּשָׁעָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע״. לְמִי נוֹשֵׂא עָוֹן — לְמִי שֶׁעוֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע.
He also said: Nor was I ever inflexible in exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged me. This is referring to conduct such as that which Rava said: Anyone who overlooks exacting a measure of retribution against those who wronged him, all his transgressions are removed from him, as it is stated: “He pardons iniquity and overlooks transgression” (Micah 7:18), which is homiletically read as saying: For whom does He pardon iniquity? For he who overlooks transgressions that others have committed against him.
שָׁאַל רַבִּי אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לוֹ: קַצְתָּ בְּחַיַּי? אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, תּוֹרָה הִיא וְלִלְמוֹד אֲנִי צָרִיךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִיָּמַי לֹא נִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בִּדְמוּת אָדָם רָשָׁע. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּצֶלֶם דְּמוּת אָדָם רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לוּלֵא פְּנֵי יְהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֲנִי נוֹשֵׂא אִם אַבִּיט אֵלֶיךָ וְאִם אֶרְאֶךָּ״.
In a similar incident, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to him: Why do you ask me, are you wearied of my long life? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, it is Torah and so I must learn it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to him: In all my days I never gazed at the likeness of a wicked man, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited for a person to gaze in the image of the likeness of a wicked man, as it is stated that the prophet Elisha said to Jehoram king of Israel: “Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” (II Kings 3:14).
R. Joshua b. Korha says that he lived a long life because he never looked at a wicked person. I don't think this means that he never saw a wicked person. This would be out of a person's control. What it means is that he stayed away from wicked people, and tried not to learn from their wicked ways. He didn't look at them with any regard. We know that people are deeply impacted by the company they choose to keep. When we choose to be around good people we raise ourselves to their standards, and we probably increase the longevity of our life (this is harder to prove, but I'm sure that we live better lives). The opposite is true as well. When we surround ourselves with shallower people, people who do less for others, people whose morality is lesser, our standards deteriorate as well.
R. Yohanan proves this point from a verse in II Kings in which Elisha the prophet speaks to Yehoram, the evil king of Israel. Elisha says that were it not for the righteous Yehoshaphat, king of Judah, he would have nothing to do with Yehoram the wicked.
R. Elazar proves the point by citing Yitzchak. As Yitzchak grew old, his eyes grew dim. As is typical, the rabbis explain physical ailments as being the result of transgression. Yitzchak should not have even looked at Esau his evil son. His favoring of Esau is what caused his eyes to grow dim. Paradoxically, it was his dim eyes that led him not to recognize Jacob's disguise and give the blessing to Jacob instead of Esau.
R. Yohanan proves this point from a verse in II Kings in which Elisha the prophet speaks to Yehoram, the evil king of Israel. Elisha says that were it not for the righteous Yehoshaphat, king of Judah, he would have nothing to do with Yehoram the wicked.
R. Elazar proves the point by citing Yitzchak. As Yitzchak grew old, his eyes grew dim. As is typical, the rabbis explain physical ailments as being the result of transgression. Yitzchak should not have even looked at Esau his evil son. His favoring of Esau is what caused his eyes to grow dim. Paradoxically, it was his dim eyes that led him not to recognize Jacob's disguise and give the blessing to Jacob instead of Esau.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: עֵינָיו כֵּהוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאוֹת״, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִסְתַּכַּל בְּעֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע.
Rabbi Elazar said: One who gazes at the likeness of an evil man, his eyes become dim, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see” (Genesis 27:1). This happened because he gazed at the wicked Esau.
הָא וְהָא גְּרַמָא לֵיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״שְׂאֵת פְּנֵי רָשָׁע לֹא טוֹב״.
According to Rabbi Yitzḥak, Abimelech’s curse was the cause of Isaac’s blindness, and it was not, as Rabbi Elazar suggested, the fact he gazed at Esau. The Gemara explains: Both this and that jointly caused it. Rava said: The prohibition against gazing at the likeness of a wicked person is derived from here: “It is not good to raise the face of the wicked” (Proverbs 18:5).
בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: [רַבִּי] בָּרְכֵנִי! אָמַר לוֹ: יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לַחֲצִי יָמַי. וּלְכוּלְּהוּ לָא? אָמַר לוֹ: הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֶיךָ — בְּהֵמָה יִרְעוּ?!
At the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa’s departure from this world, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, bless me. He said to him: May it be God’s will that you live to reach to half of my days. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he asked in astonishment: Are you saying that to the entirety of your days I should not reach? Why? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to him: Shall those who come after you just tend cattle? If you live as long as me, your sons will never be able to succeed you in the position of Nasi. As such, they will never achieve greatness in Torah, and it will be as if they just tended cattle throughout their lives. It is therefore better that your life not be so prolonged, so that they have the opportunity to rise to eminence.
When Rabbi Joshua b. Korha died he offered a strange blessing to Rabbi [Judah Hanasi]: May you live half as long as I do! Rabbi is stunned by this blessing. Why shouldn't he live out a full, long life, as did R. Joshua b. Korha. The cryptic answer refers to Rabbi Judah Hanasi's children. If Rabbi lives a very long life, his children will not be able to fill his role as Patriarch. They will be left grazing cattle in the field, with little time left in their own lives to make their mark on Judaism and the community as Patriarch. This seems to me a deep message about the mixed blessing of longevity. Of course, by living long we don't really prevent the success of our children, but it is worth remembering that at a certain time we need to step aside and make room for the new generation. I hope I'll remember this sugya when my time approaches. But I also hope that's still quite a while away.
אֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי וּמִנְיָמִן בַּר אִיהִי, חַד אָמַר: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּלָא אִסְתַּכַּלִי בְּגוֹי, וְחַד אָמַר: תֵּיתֵי לִי דְּלָא עֲבַדִי שׁוּתָּפוּת בַּהֲדֵי גּוֹי.
Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi both spoke on this topic: One of them said: May a blessing come to me for I never gazed at a wicked gentile. And the other one said: May a blessing come to me for I never formed a partnership with a wicked gentile, so as not to have any association with a wicked person.
These two amoraim profess strong anti-non-Jew sentiments, asking for a reward in the world to come because they have either never looked at a non-Jew or never had a partnership with a non-Jew. When reading statements such as these I contextualize them in a world in which there was strong ethnic and religious hostility between Jews and non-Jews, and I do not internalize them into my world. I wish for a world in which Jews and non-Jews look deeply at each other, respect each other's differences, recognize the fundamental similarities and engage in partnerships to better us all. That's the world I live in.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי זֵירָא: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִיָּמַי לֹא הִקְפַּדְתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי, וְלֹא צָעַדְתִּי בִּפְנֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנִּי, וְלֹא הִרְהַרְתִּי בִּמְבוֹאוֹת הַמְטוּנָּפוֹת, וְלֹא הָלַכְתִּי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלֹא תּוֹרָה וּבְלֹא תְּפִילִּין, וְלֹא יָשַׁנְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לֹא שֵׁינַת קֶבַע וְלֹא שֵׁינַת עֲרַאי, וְלֹא שַׂשְׂתִּי בְּתַקָּלַת חֲבֵירִי, וְלֹא קָרָאתִי לַחֲבֵירִי (בַּחֲנִיכָתוֹ), וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: (בַּחֲכִינָתוֹ).
The Gemara presents a similar incident: Rabbi Zeira was once asked by his disciples: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to them: In all my days, I was never angry inside my house with members of my household who acted against my wishes. Nor did I ever walk ahead of someone who was a greater Torah scholar than me. Nor did I ever meditate upon words of Torah in filthy alleyways, as doing so is a disgrace to the Torah. Nor did I ever walk four cubits without meditating on words of Torah or without wearing phylacteries. Nor did I ever sleep in a study hall, neither a deep sleep or a brief nap. Nor did I ever rejoice when my fellow stumbled. Nor did I ever call my fellow by his derogatory nickname [ḥanikhato]. And some say that he said: I never called my fellow by his nickname [ḥakhinato], i.e., even one that is not derogatory.
עָלוּ בּוֹ עֲשָׂבִים לֹא יִתְלוֹשׁ, מִפְּנֵי עׇגְמַת נֶפֶשׁ.
However, if grass sprang up of its own accord in the ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, one should not pick it, due to the anguish that it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וּדְאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּתָגָא — חָלֵף. תָּנֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: זֶה הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹנֶה הֲלָכוֹת כִּתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.
We learned in a mishna there (Avot 1:13): And one who makes use of the crown [taga] of Torah learning will perish from the world. Reish Lakish taught: This is referring to one who allows himself to be served by one who studies halakhot, which is the crown of the Torah.
The Mishnah teaches that if someone uses the “crown” he will pass away. This refers to the “crown of the Torah” condemning one who uses Torah for personal gain. Resh Lakish interprets it to mean that one cannot “accept service” from a person who knows enough to repeat halakhot. One must treat such a person with a high degree of respect, and not allow him to act as a servant. Ulla says that one does not owe such a high amount of respect to someone just because they can repeat Torah. To earn such a high level of respect the person must also be able to teach it.
Ulla refers to “four orders of the Mishnah.” By the amoraic period two orders of the original six were not being learned. In Israel they taught: Zeraim, Moed, Nashim and Nezikin. In Babylonia they taught: Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodashim. In neither place was Toharot taught. I think I can understand why.
Ulla refers to “four orders of the Mishnah.” By the amoraic period two orders of the original six were not being learned. In Israel they taught: Zeraim, Moed, Nashim and Nezikin. In Babylonia they taught: Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodashim. In neither place was Toharot taught. I think I can understand why.
וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: לִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ אִינִישׁ בְּמַאן דְּתָנֵי אַרְבְּעָה, וְלָא לִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרְבְּעָה. כִּי הָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֲוָה אָזֵיל בְּאוֹרְחָא מְטָא עוּרְקְמָא דְמַיָּא, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ וְקָא מְעַבַּר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְרֵית? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָרֵינָא. תְּנֵית? תָּנֵינָא אַרְבָּעָה סִידְרֵי מִשְׁנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּסַלְתְּ לָךְ אַרְבְּעָה טוּרֵי וְטָעֲנַתְּ בַּר לָקִישׁ אַכַּתְפָּךְ?! שְׁדִי בַּר לָקִישָׁא בְּמַיָּא!
And Ulla said: It is better that a person should be served by one who studies four orders of the Mishna, and he should not allow himself to be served by one who teaches to others four orders of the Mishna, as in that case of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road when he reached a deep puddle of water. A certain man came and placed him upon his shoulders and began transferring him to the other side. Reish Lakish said to him: Have you read the Bible? He said to him: I have read it. He then asked: Have you studied the Mishna? He answered him: I have studied four orders of the Mishna. Reish Lakish then said to him: You have hewn these four mountains and yet you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? It is inappropriate for you to carry me; throw the son of Lakish into the water.
מְבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת, וּלְהַכְנָסַת הַכַּלָּה. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי שֶׁהָיָה מְבַטֵּל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַכְנָסַת הַכַּלָּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ — אֵין מְבַטְּלִין.
One interrupts his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. They said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would interrupt his Torah study to carry out the dead for burial and to escort a bride to her wedding. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: In what case is this statement said? Only where there are not sufficient numbers of other people available to perform these mitzvot and honor the deceased or the bride appropriately. However, when there are sufficient numbers, additional people should not interrupt their Torah study to participate.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת, אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בָּהֶן קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ. אֵין מַרְעִין בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין מוֹלִיכִין בָּהֶן אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְאֵין מְלַקְּטִין בָּהֶן עֲשָׂבִים. וְאִם לִיקֵּט — שׂוֹרְפָן בִּמְקוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד מֵתִים.
The Sages taught in a baraita: In a cemetery, one may not act with frivolity; one may not graze an animal on the grass growing inside it; and one may not direct a water channel to pass through it; and one may not gather grass inside it to use the grass as feed for one’s animals; and if one gathered grass for that purpose, it should be burnt on the spot, out of respect for the dead.
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא — כֵּיוָן שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפָן בִּמְקוֹמָן מַאי כְּבוֹד מֵתִים אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the phrase: Out of respect for the dead, to which clause of the baraita does it refer? If we say it is referring to the last clause, that if one gathered grass that it should be burnt out of respect for the dead, then one could ask: Since the grass is burnt on the spot, and not publicly, what respect for the dead is there in this act? Rather, the phrase must be referring to the first clause of the baraita, and it explains why it is prohibited to act with frivolity.
There are two reasons given as to why one should not interrupt reading the curses. The first is that we should not reject discipline from God. One who stops in the middle of reading the curses looks as if he is rejecting his chastisement. [Thank you sir, may I have another].
Resh Lakish brings up another problem. If one stops while reading the curses he will recite a blessing over a curse.
Resh Lakish brings up another problem. If one stops while reading the curses he will recite a blessing over a curse.
בְּתַעֲנִיּוֹת בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת, וְאֵין מַפְסִיקִין בַּקְּלָלוֹת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר גַּמָּדָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״מוּסַר ה׳ בְּנִי אַל תִּמְאָס״.
§ The mishna states: On fast days the congregation reads the portion of blessings and curses (Leviticus, chapter 16), and one may not interrupt the reading of the curses by having two different people read them. Rather, one person reads all of them. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Why does one not interrupt the reading of the curses? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Asi said: For the verse states: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be weary of His correction” (Proverbs 3:11). If one makes a break in the middle of the curses, it appears as if he loathes rebuke.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ זְקֵנִים ״סְתוֹר״ וִילָדִים ״בְּנֵה״ — סְתוֹר וְאַל תִּבְנֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסְּתִירַת זְקֵנִים בִּנְיָן, וּבִנְיַן נְעָרִים סְתִירָה. וְסִימָן לַדָּבָר — רְחַבְעָם בֶּן שְׁלֹמֹה.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If old men say to you: Demolish, and children say to you: Build, then demolish and do not build, because the demolishing of old men is ultimately as constructive as building, despite the fact that it appears destructive, and the building of children is as destructive as demolishing. An indication of this matter is Rehoboam, son of Solomon. He ignored the advice of the Elders and did not lower himself before his people, which ultimately led to the people rebelling against him.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא יָדַע לְבַסּוֹמֵי קָלָא — ״מִשְׁפָּטִים לֹא יִחְיוּ בָּהֶם״ קָרֵית בֵּיהּ?! אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַיּוֹשְׁבִים בְּעִיר אַחַת וְאֵין נוֹחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בַּהֲלָכָה — עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְגַם אֲנִי נָתַתִּי לָהֶם חוּקִּים לֹא טוֹבִים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים לֹא יִחְיוּ בָּהֶם״.
Abaye strongly objects to this: Just because one does not know how to make his voice pleasant, you read concerning him: “And judgments whereby they should not live”? Rather, the verse should be understood in accordance with the statement of Rav Mesharshiyya, who said: Concerning two Torah scholars who dwell in the same city and are not pleasant to one other in matters of halakha, and they quarrel and stir up controversy, the verse states: “So too I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.”
וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת קִלְקוּלֵי הַמַּיִם שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְחוֹטְטִין אוֹתָן, וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְווֹת הַמַּיִם, וְעוֹשִׂין כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי הָרַבִּים, וּמְצַיְּינִין אֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם.
In addition to performing labor on one’s own property in order to avoid financial loss, it is also permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival for the public welfare: One may repair damaged water cisterns that are in the public domain, and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that accumulated there; one may repair roads, streets, and ritual baths; and one may tend to all other public needs. So too, one may mark graves to inform the public of their ritual impurity, and inspectors may even go out to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.
מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְסֵידָא — אִין, הַרְווֹחָה — לָא? וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא — מִיטְרָח נָמֵי לָא טָרְחִינַן.
The Gemara begins to clarify the underlying principle of the mishna, asking: Who is the anonymous tanna of the mishna who maintains that labor performed to prevent a considerable loss, such as watering a field that requires irrigation, yes, it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival; but labor performed to increase one’s profit, such as watering a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, it is not permitted? Furthermore, even in a case involving loss, one may not excessively exert oneself, as the tanna of the mishna renders prohibited all cases of watering fields with collected rainwater or with water drawn with a shadoof, even in a field that requires irrigation.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת הַמַּיִם מֵאִילָן לְאִילָן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁקֶה אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ.
Rav Huna said: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In a field filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from tree to tree, provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. As this field ordinarily suffices with rainwater, it is prohibited to water the entire field. Therefore, it is evident that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov renders prohibited work performed to increase profit on the intermediate days of a Festival.
בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט קַרְקַע — אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט כְּסָפִים, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט קַרְקַע — אִי אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט כְּסָפִים.
This verse equates these two releases, indicating that when you are mandated by Torah law to release land, you must release money, and when you are not mandated to release land, you need not release money. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at the present time, the release of land is not mandated by Torah law. Therefore, observance of the Sabbatical Year is mandated only by rabbinic law, and the Sages were lenient in a case of significant loss.
אַבָּיֵי שְׁרָא לִבְנֵי בַּר הַמְדָּךְ לְשַׁחוֹפֵי נַהֲרָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה שְׁרָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי סָכוּתָא לְמִיכְרֵא נַהֲרָא טְמִימָא. רַב אָשֵׁי שְׁרָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי מָתָא מַחְסֵיָא לְאַקְדּוֹחֵי נְהַר בּוּרְנִיץ. אֲמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁתוּ מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּים — כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵי, וּתְנַן: עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי רַבִּים.
It was related that Abaye permitted the people of Bar Hamdakh to remove the branches of the trees from the river on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sekhavta to dredge out a river that had become blocked. Rav Ashi permitted his townsmen, the people of Mata Meḥasya, to clean out the nearby Burnitz River. He said: Since the public drinks from it, it is considered like a public need, and we learned in the mishna that one may tend to all other public needs on the intermediate days of a Festival.
אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא! תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: חוֹטְטִין בּוֹרוֹת שֶׁל יָחִיד בְּשֶׁיָּחִיד צָרִיךְ לָהֶם, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשֶׁל רַבִּים כְּשֶׁרַבִּים צְרִיכִין לָהֶם, דַּאֲפִילּוּ חֲפִירָה מוּתָּר.
But if so, the first baraita, which states that one may not dig new cisterns even for the public, is difficult, as it is contradicted by this last baraita. The Gemara explains: Answer the difficulty and explain the first baraita as follows: One may clean out cisterns, ditches, and caves of an individual during the intermediate days of a Festival when the individual needs them; and needless to say, one may clean out those of the public when the public needs them, as even digging new cisterns is permitted when the public needs them.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשׁוֹל״. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: ״וְאָמַר סֹלּוּ סֹלּוּ פַּנּוּ דָרֶךְ״.
Abaye said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be learned from here, as it is written: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Rav Pappa said the obligation is alluded to in the verse: “And He will say: Pave, pave, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people” (Isaiah 57:14), which indicates that roads must be cleared of all obstacles and hazards.
רַב חִינָּנָא אָמַר: ״הָרִימוּ מִכְשׁוֹל מִדֶּרֶךְ עַמִּי״. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: ״וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ בָהּ״.
Rav Ḥinnana said: This may be derived from the end of that very same verse: “Take up the stumbling block from the way of My people” (Isaiah 57:14). Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said: This may be derived from the verse: “And you shall show them the way in which they must walk” (Exodus 18:20), i.e., you must properly repair the roads, which includes marking graves.
מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: ״וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטּוּמְאָתָם״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי״ — עֲשׂוּ מִשְׁמֶרֶת לְמִשְׁמַרְתִּי.
Mar Zutra said that an allusion to this obligation is found in the verse “Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their impurity” (Leviticus 15:31), which indicates that people must be warned to stay away from that which could cause them to become ritually impure. Rav Ashi said it is derived from the verse: “And you shall keep My charge” (Leviticus 18:30), which means that you must establish a safeguard for My charge, i.e., protective measures must be enacted to prevent people from transgressing halakha, a task that includes distancing people from ritual impurity by marking off graves, so that they not come to convey ritual impurity to teruma or other consecrated items.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשָּׁם אוֹרְחוֹתָיו — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וְשָׂם״, אֶלָּא: ״וְשָׁם דֶּרֶךְ״ — ״אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים״.
With regard to the verse from Psalms cited above, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever appraises his ways in this world and contemplates how to act in the most appropriate way possible merits seeing the salvation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “And to him who orders his way.” Do not read it as vesam, who orders; rather, read it as vesham, and appraises. With this reading, the verse indicates that one who appraises his ways, him will I show the salvation of God.
רַבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא תַּלְמִידָא דְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מַקְשֵׁי לֵיהּ, בְּשַׁבְּתָא דְרִיגְלָא לָא הֲוָה מַקְשֵׁי לֵיהּ,
Rabbi Yannai had a certain student who would raise difficulties with his teachings every day as they were learning. On Shabbat of a Festival, when the broader public would come to hear the lesson, the student would not raise any difficulties, lest Rabbi Yannai lack an immediate answer and suffer embarrassment.
קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים״.
Rabbi Yannai read this verse about him: “And to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God” (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.
יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם הָיָה אוּמָּן לָרַבִּים, וְסַפָּר וּבַלָּן לָרַבִּים, וְהִגִּיעַ עֵת הָרֶגֶל וְאֵין שָׁם אוּמָּן אֶלָּא הוּא — הֲרֵי זֶה יַעֲשֶׂה.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said further: If this mourner was a craftsman who serves the public, providing a necessary service, or a barber or a bath attendant for the public, and the time of the Festival arrived, i.e., it was the eve of a Festival, and there is no other skilled worker available but him, then he may perform the labor even in public, as the needs of the public takes precedence over the mourning of an individual.
וְהוּא סָבַר: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara explains: But Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, maintains: An important person is different. Even if strictly speaking something is permitted, an important person must be more rigorous with himself, so that people learn not to take the halakha lightly.
וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקַבְּלֵי קִיבּוֹלֶת — בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם אָסוּר, חוּץ לַתְּחוּם מוּתָּר! אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: סַיּוֹעֵי סַיַּיע בְּתִיבְנָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Shmuel say: With regard to gentile contractors, within the boundaries of the Shabbat limit, it is prohibited to let them work on Shabbat, but outside the Shabbat limit it is permitted? The Gemara answers: An important person is different and must behave in a stricter manner. And there are those who say: He provided them with assistance with straw for making the bricks. Consequently, they were not fully independent contractors, and therefore it was prohibited for them to work on Shabbat, even outside the Shabbat limit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: שָׂדֶה שֶׁנִּתְקַוְּוצָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִית — תִּזָּרַע לְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, נִטַּיְּיבָה אוֹ נִדַּיְּירָה — לֹא תִּזָּרַע לְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: נָקְטִינַן, הֱטִיבָהּ וָמֵת — בְּנוֹ זוֹרְעָהּ, אַלְמָא: לְדִידֵיהּ קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן, לִבְרֵיהּ לָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן. הָכָא נָמֵי: לְדִידֵיהּ קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן, לִבְרֵיהּ לָא קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a mishna (Shevi’it 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the eighth year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been enclosed so that animals therein would fertilize it with their manure, it may not be sown in the eighth year. The Sages imposed a penalty that one not benefit from prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a prohibited manner and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, the Sages penalized only him, the one who acted wrongly, but the Sages did not penalize his son. Here, too, with regard to work performed on the intermediate days of a Festival, the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין לוֹקְחִין בָּתִּים עֲבָדִים וּבְהֵמָה אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ הַמּוֹעֵד, אוֹ לְצוֹרֶךְ הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל.
MISHNA: One may not purchase houses, slaves, and cattle on the intermediate days of a Festival unless it is for the sake of the Festival, or to provide for the needs of the seller who does not have anything to eat.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב בַּמּוֹעֵד, וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל — הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתּוֹב. שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי שְׂכַר פְּעוּלָּה! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Abaye raised an objection from a mishna (18b): Promissory notes may not be written on the intermediate days of a Festival, but if the lender does not trust the borrower and is concerned that without such a note he will be unable to collect, or if he has nothing to eat, he may write a promissory note. The Gemara elaborates: What is added here by the words: If he has nothing to eat? Are they not meant to add that a promissory note may be written for the sake of the wages of the scribe who draws up the document? Conclude from it that it is permitted to hire a worker who is in need of a livelihood even for work that would otherwise be prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival.
וְהָא קָא מִימַּנְעִי מִשִּׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְסַנְהֶדְרִין (שֶׁרָאוּ בְּאֶחָד) שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ שֶׁאֵין טוֹעֲמִין כׇּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם״.
But if so, the judges would be prevented from rejoicing on the Festival, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: From where is it derived with regard to the Sanhedrin who put someone to death that they may not taste any food or drink for the entire rest of the day? The verse states: “You shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19:26). It is not appropriate to eat during the same day that they caused bloodshed.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: הַזָּבִין וְהַמְצוֹרָעִין וּבוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת — מוּתָּרִין לִקְרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַנְּבִיאִים וּבַכְּתוּבִים, וְלִשְׁנוֹת בַּמִּדְרָשׁ וּבַתַּלְמוּד, בַּהֲלָכוֹת וּבָאַגָּדוֹת. וּבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין אֲסוּרִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
From here the Sages stated: Zavim, lepers, and those who had intercourse with menstruating women despite their severe ritual impurity are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study midrash, Talmud, halakhot, and aggada. But those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond one’s control; as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as one studies Torah. However, a seminal emission usually occurs due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe, and it is therefore inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of Torah. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that a leper is permitted to study words of Torah.
שׁוּב פַּעַם אֶחָד גָּזַר רַבִּי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ לַתַּלְמִידִים בַּשּׁוּק, מַאי דְּרַשׁ — ״חַמּוּקֵי יְרֵכַיִךְ כְּמוֹ חֲלָאִים״. מָה יָרֵךְ בַּסֵּתֶר,
Once again, on another occasion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decreed that students not be taught in the marketplace but only in a study hall. What verse did he expound to serve as the basis for this decree? The verse states: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of an artist” (Song of Songs 7:2). Just as a thigh is ordinarily hidden and kept covered with clothes,
אַף דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה בַּסֵּתֶר.
so too, the words of Torah, which are “the work of the hands of an artist,” i.e., God, must remain hidden in the study hall.
וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, הַאי ״חַמּוּקֵי יְרֵכַיִךְ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵהּ? מוֹקֵי לֵהּ בִּצְדָקָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים.
The Gemara asks: And what did Rabbi Ḥiyya do with this verse: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels”? How did he understand it? This verse implies that the Torah must be kept hidden in the study hall and not publicized in the marketplace. The Gemara explains: He interprets it not as a reference to Torah, but as referring to acts of charity and loving-kindness, which should certainly be performed in private.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: מִידֵּי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בְּהָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ דַעַת וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת הוּא״. אִם דּוֹמֶה הָרַב לְמַלְאַךְ ה׳ — יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיו, וְאִם לָאו — אַל יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיו.
Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Have you heard anything with regard to this issue? He said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah at his mouth; for he is a messenger [malakh] of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? This verse teaches: If the teacher is similar to an angel [malakh] of the Lord, then seek Torah from his mouth, but if he is not pure and upright, then do not seek Torah from his mouth; even if he is knowledgeable about Torah, do not learn from him.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שׁוּב יוֹם אֶחָד לִפְנֵי מִיתָתֶךָ. שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וְכִי אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ יוֹם יָמוּת? אָמַר לָהֶן: וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן, יָשׁוּב הַיּוֹם, שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת לְמָחָר, וְנִמְצָא כׇּל יָמָיו בִּתְשׁוּבָה. וְאַף שְׁלֹמֹה אָמַר בְּחׇכְמָתוֹ: ״בְּכׇל עֵת יִהְיוּ בְגָדֶיךָ לְבָנִים וְשֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשְׁךָ אַל יֶחְסָר״.
We learned there in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Repent one day before your death. Rabbi Eliezer’s students asked him: But does a person know the day on which he will die? He said to them: All the more so this is a good piece of advice, and one should repent today lest he die tomorrow; and by following this advice one will spend his entire life in a state of repentance. And King Solomon also said in his wisdom: “At all times your clothes should be white, and oil shall not be absent from upon your head” (Ecclesiastes 9:8), meaning that a person always needs to be prepared.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב בַּמּוֹעֵד. וְאִם אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל — הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתּוֹב.
MISHNA: One may not write bills of debt on the intermediate days of a Festival. But if the lender does not trust the borrower, and he is concerned that the borrower will later deny the loan, or if the scribe has nothing to eat, then he may write a bill of debt during the Festival week.
אִינִי? וְהָא רַב, בַּר אֲחוּהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּהוּא בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, כִּי סְלֵיק לְהָתָם אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַבָּא קַיָּים?
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that this is Rabbi Aḥiyya’s opinion? But Rav was the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother and also the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sister, for Rav’s father, Aivu, was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s paternal half brother, and Rav’s mother was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s maternal half sister. When Rav went there, Eretz Yisrael, his uncle Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Is your father, Aivu, still alive?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִימָּא קַיֶּימֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִימָּא קַיֶּימֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַבָּא קַיָּים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: חֲלוֹץ לִי מִנְעָלַי, וְהוֹלֵךְ אַחֲרַי כֵּלַי לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ.
Not wishing to deliver unfortunate news, Rav said to him: Is my mother still alive? In other words, why do you not ask me about my mother, who is your sister, whether she is still among the living? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Is your mother still alive? Rav said to him: Is my father still alive? Rabbi Ḥiyya understood from Rav’s failure to provide him with straight answers that both his brother and his sister had passed away. Rabbi Ḥiyya immediately said to his servant: Remove my shoes as a sign of mourning, and afterward carry my clothes behind me, as I am going to the bathhouse.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: הַמּוֹצֵא אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ אָבֵל לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ תַּנְחוּמִין, לְמָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ וְחָיְתָה, מְצָאוֹ רוֹפֵא וְאָמַר לוֹ: כְּלָךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹבְרָהּ וַאֲרַפְּאֶנָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּדַע שֶׁסַּמְמָנִין שֶׁלִּי יָפִין!
Rabbi Meir said: One who finds another in mourning after twelve months and speaks to him words of consolation, to what may this situation be likened? To a person who broke his leg and it healed, and afterward a physician found him and said to him: Come to me, for I will break it a second time and then I will heal it, so that you may know how good my medicines are and how well they work. One who consoles his friend after so much time has passed acts in a similar fashion, stirring up an old wound and then trying to heal it. In any event, it appears that one must not extend greetings to a mourner during the entire twelve-month mourning period.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּבֶגֶד קָרוּעַ לִפְנֵי הַמֵּת — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הַמֵּתִים וְאֶת הַחַיִּים.
The Sages taught the following baraita: One who goes out before the deceased in a rent garment that he had previously torn over another bereavement, thereby giving the appearance of having rent his garment for him, steals from the dead, as he did not rend a garment for him. And he similarly steals from the living, who see him and think that he made the tear in honor of the deceased, when in reality he is deceiving them.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹלֶה שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת — אֵין מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁמָּא תִּטָּרֵף דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו. וְאֵין מְקָרְעִין בְּפָנָיו, וּמְשַׁתְּקִין אֶת הַנָּשִׁים מִפָּנָיו.
The Sages taught the following baraita: When a relative of a sick person dies, those around him do not inform him that this relative died, lest he lose control of his mind due to his emotional state and his grief exacerbate his physical health. And other people may not rend their garments in his presence, so that he will not know that one of his relatives passed away. And we silence the women who weep in his presence, so that he will not know that his relative is no longer alive.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל וְגוֹ׳״ עַד ״וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁל מִיתָה: דְּיִסְפֹּד — יִסְפְּדוּנֵיהּ, דְּיִקְבַּר — יִקְבְּרוּנֵיהּ, דְּיִטְעֹן — יִטְעֲנוּנֵיהּ, דִּידַל — יְדַלּוּנֵיהּ.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say with regard to the verse “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2): What should the living lay to his heart? Matters relating to death. And these matters are as follows: He that eulogizes will be eulogized by others. He that buries others will be buried by others. He that loads many words of praise and tribute into the eulogies that he delivers for others will be similarly treated by others. He that raises his voice in weeping over others will have others raise their voices over him.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא יְדַל — יְדַלּוּנֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי טוֹב אֲמׇר לְךָ עֲלֵה הֵנָּה וְגוֹ׳״.
And some say: One who does not raise himself with pride, but chooses his place among the lowly, will be raised by others, as it is written: “Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence, and stand not in the place of great men. For it is better to be told, step up here, than to be degraded in the presence of the great” (Proverbs 25:6–7).
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא יְדַל — יְדַלּוּנֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי טוֹב אֲמׇר לְךָ עֲלֵה הֵנָּה וְגוֹ׳״.
And some say: One who does not raise himself with pride, but chooses his place among the lowly, will be raised by others, as it is written: “Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence, and stand not in the place of great men. For it is better to be told, step up here, than to be degraded in the presence of the great” (Proverbs 25:6–7).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: כׇּל הַיּוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וּמִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, זוֹכֶה וּמְקַבֵּל פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יֵלְכוּ מֵחַיִל אֶל חָיִל יֵרָאֶה אֶל אֱלֹהִים בְּצִיּוֹן״.
And Rabbi Levi said: Anyone who leaves from the synagogue and goes to the study hall or goes from the study hall to the synagogue, i.e., he goes from the mitzva of prayer to the mitzva of Torah study or vice versa, merits to receive the Divine Presence, as it is stated: “They go from strength to strength, every one of them appears before God in Zion” (Psalms 84:8).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר [בֶּן] חִסְמָא שֶׁהָלְכוּ לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּפְקִיעִין. אָמַר לָהֶם: מָה חִידּוּשׁ הָיָה בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תַּלְמִידֶיךָ אָנוּ וּמֵימֶיךָ אָנוּ שׁוֹתִין. אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ בְּלֹא חִידּוּשׁ.
§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma, when they went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: What novel idea was taught today in the study hall? They said to him: We are your students and we drink from your water, i.e., all of our Torah knowledge comes from you, and therefore how can we tell you something you have not already learned? He said to them: Even so, there cannot be a study hall without a novelty.
מַאי ״עַל כׇּל נֶעְלָם״? אָמַר רַב: זֶה הַהוֹרֵג כִּינָּה בִּפְנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ וְנִמְאָס בָּהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: זֶה הָרָק בִּפְנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ וְנִמְאָס.
The Gemara asks: What sin is the verse referring to when it states: “Concerning every hidden thing”? Rav said: This is referring to one who kills a louse in the presence of another and his friend is disgusted by it. God judges him for the unintentional discomfort he caused. And similarly, Shmuel said: This is referring to one who spits in the presence of another and his friend is disgusted by his action.
מַאי ״אִם טוֹב וְאִם רָע״? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן צְדָקָה לְעָנִי בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקָא יָהֵיב זוּזָא לְעָנִי בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּטָב דְּלָא יְהַבְתְּ לֵיהּ, מֵהַשְׁתָּא דִּיהַבְתְּ לֵיהּ וְכַסֵּפְתֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “Whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14)? This verse indicates that God judges man harshly even for the good deeds he performs. The Sages from the school of Rabbi Yannai say: This verse is referring to one who gives charity to a poor person in public. Although he performed a good deed, he embarrassed the pauper, as in this case of Rabbi Yannai, who saw a certain man who was giving a dinar to a poor person in public. He said to him: It would have been better had you not given it to him than what you did, as now you gave it to him and embarrassed him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בּוֹכֶה עֲלֵיהֶן בְּכׇל יוֹם: עַל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק, וְעַל שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲסוֹק בְּתוֹרָה וְעוֹסֵק, וְעַל פַּרְנָס הַמִּתְגָּאֶה עַל הַצִּבּוּר.
The Sages taught that there are three types of people for whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, cries every day: For one who is able to engage in Torah study and does not engage in it; and for one who is unable to engage in Torah study and nevertheless he endeavors and engages in it; and for a leader who lords over the community.
תְּנַן הָתָם, אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁיעוּר:
We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 1:1): These are the mitzvot that have no measure:
הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה.
Produce in the corner of the field that must be left unharvested, which is given to the poor [pe’a]; and the first fruits, which are brought to the Temple; and the appearance in the Temple on the pilgrim Festivals; and acts of loving-kindness; and Torah study.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָיא אוֹמֵר: אֵיזֶהוּ מְעֻוּוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתָּקֵן? זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר. אִם תֹּאמַר בְּגוֹנֵב וְגוֹזֵל — יָכוֹל הוּא לְהַחְזִירוֹ, וִיתַקֵּן.
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין קוֹרִין מְעֻוּוֹת אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה מְתוּקָּן בַּתְּחִילָּה וְנִתְעַוֵּות, וְאֵי זֶה? זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One calls crooked only someone who was initially straight and subsequently became crooked. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study. Here is an example of something straight that became crooked.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר הֵי הֵי לְהִלֵּל: הַאי ״לְהִימָּנוֹת״, לְהִמָּלאוֹת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא, זֶה (שֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ) [שֶׁנִּמְנוּ] חֲבֵירָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וְהוּא לֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶן.
The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: “Be numbered [lehimanot]” is apparently inappropriate. It should have said: Be filled. Rather, this verse is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus [manuhu] with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus, and therefore he missed his opportunity to join them in the performance of the mitzva.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן״ — זֶה שֶׁבִּיטֵּל קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, אוֹ קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל עַרְבִית, אוֹ שֶׁבִּיטֵּל תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל עַרְבִית. ״וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִימָּנוֹת״ — זֶה שֶׁנִּמְנוּ חֲבֵירָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה וְהוּא לֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶן.
This explanation is also taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is as follows: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” is referring to one who omitted the recitation of the morning Shema or the recitation of the evening Shema, or who omitted the morning prayer or the evening prayer. “And that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר הֵי הֵי לְהִלֵּל, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׁבְתֶּם וּרְאִיתֶם בֵּין צַדִּיק לְרָשָׁע בֵּין עוֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים לַאֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״, הַיְינוּ ״צַדִּיק״ — הַיְינוּ ״עוֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים״, הַיְינוּ ״רָשָׁע״ — הַיְינוּ ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבָדוֹ״ וְ״לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״ — תַּרְוַיְיהוּ צַדִּיקֵי גְּמוּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה שׁוֹנֶה פִּרְקוֹ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים, לְשׁוֹנֶה פִּרְקוֹ מֵאָה וְאֶחָד.
The Gemara records another discussion between bar Hei Hei and Hillel. Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). There are two redundancies here: “The righteous” is the same as “he who serves God,” and “the wicked” is the same as “he who does not serve Him.” Hillel said to him: The one “who serves Him” and the one “who does not serve Him” are both referring to completely righteous people. But the verse is hinting at a distinction between them, as one who reviews his studies one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִשּׁוּם חַד זִימְנָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, צֵא וּלְמַד מִשּׁוּק שֶׁל חֲמָרִין: עַשְׂרָה פַּרְסֵי — בְּזוּזָא, חַד עֲשַׂר פַּרְסֵי — בִּתְרֵי זוּזֵי.
Bar Hei Hei said to him: And due to one extra time that he did not review, the verse calls him a person “who does not serve Him”? He said to him: Yes. Go and learn from the market of donkey drivers. One can hire a driver to travel up to ten parasangs for one dinar. However, he will travel eleven parasangs only for two dinars. This shows that any departure beyond the norm is considered a significant difference.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵי זֶה הוּא ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן״ — זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר וְכוּ׳. הוֹלִיד — אִין, לֹא הוֹלִיד — לָא?
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. The Gemara infers from the mishna: If he fathers a child, yes, this verse applies, as he cannot remedy the situation; if he does not father a child, no, the verse does not apply, as he can make amends.
וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: גּוֹנֵב אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּנֵבוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, גּוֹזֵל אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּזֵלוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲסָרָהּ לְבַעְלָהּ — נִטְרַד מִן הָעוֹלָם וְהָלַךְ לוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If a person steals it is possible that he might return his stolen property and be made straight; if a person robs from another it is possible that he might return his robbed property and be made straight. However, one who has sexual relations with a married woman with her consent and thereby renders her forbidden to her husband is banished from the world and passes away. There is no way for him to rectify the situation and achieve atonement, because a married woman who willingly has sexual relations with another man is permanently forbidden to her husband.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ פְּנוּיָה, כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing with a case where he had forbidden sexual relations with his unmarried sister. Although the intercourse itself is a severe sin, if he does not sire a child it can be rectified through repentance. There, in the baraita, it is referring to a case where he sinned with a married woman, causing irreparable damage to her marriage. And if you wish, say instead: This and that are both referring to a married woman. And it is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing
בְּאוֹנֶס, כָּאן בְּרָצוֹן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא בְּאוֹנֶס, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן, כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל.
with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.
כׇּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, רָתוּי לוֹ כְּאִילּוּ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם: מָה לְמַעְלָה, מָה לְמַטָּה, מָה לְפָנִים, וּמָה לְאָחוֹר. וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָתוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.
The mishna continues in the same vein: Whoever looks at four matters, it would have been better for him had he never entered the world: Anyone who reflects upon what is above the firmament and what is below the earth, what was before Creation, and what will be after the end of the world. And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Maker, who inquires into and deals with matters not permitted to him, deserves to have never come to the world.
עֲרָבוֹת — שֶׁבּוֹ צֶדֶק מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה, גִּנְזֵי חַיִּים וְגִנְזֵי שָׁלוֹם וְגִנְזֵי בְרָכָה, וְנִשְׁמָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, וְרוּחוֹת וּנְשָׁמוֹת שֶׁעֲתִיד[וֹת] לְהִיבָּרְאוֹת, וְטַל שֶׁעָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהַחֲיוֹת בּוֹ מֵתִים. צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט — דִּכְתִיב: ״צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶךָ״. צְדָקָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּלְבַּשׁ צְדָקָה כַּשִּׁרְיָן״. גִּנְזֵי חַיִּים — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עִמְּךָ מְקוֹר חַיִּים״. וְגִנְזֵי שָׁלוֹם — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ ה׳ שָׁלוֹם״. וְגִנְזֵי בְרָכָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״יִשָּׂא בְרָכָה מֵאֵת ה׳״.
Aravot, skies, is the firmament that contains righteousness; justice; righteousness, i.e., charity; the treasuries of life; the treasuries of peace; the treasuries of blessing; the souls of the righteous; the spirits and souls that are to be created; and the dew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will use to revive the dead. The Gemara proves this statement: Righteousness and justice are found in heaven, as it is written: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15); righteousness, as it is written: “And He donned righteousness as armor” (Isaiah 59:17); the treasuries of life, as it is written: “For with You is the source of life” (Psalms 36:10). And the treasuries of peace are found in heaven, as it is written: “And he called Him the Lord of peace” (Judges 6:24), implying that peace is God’s name and is therefore found close to Him. And the treasuries of blessing, as it is written: “He shall receive a blessing from the Lord” (Psalms 24:5).
עַד כָּאן יֵשׁ לְךָ רְשׁוּת לְדַבֵּר, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לְדַבֵּר, שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא: ״בַּמּוּפְלָא מִמְּךָ אַל תִּדְרוֹשׁ, וּבַמְכוּסֶּה מִמְּךָ אַל תַּחְקוֹר. בַּמֶּה שֶׁהוֹרְשֵׁיתָ הִתְבּוֹנֵן, אֵין לְךָ עֵסֶק בַּנִּסְתָּרוֹת״. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: מָה תְּשׁוּבָה הֱשִׁיבַתּוּ בַּת קוֹל לְאוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר ״אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב אֶדַּמֶּה לְעֶלְיוֹן״ — יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: רָשָׁע בֶּן רָשָׁע, בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל נִמְרוֹד הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁהִמְרִיד כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ עָלָיו בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ —
The Gemara comments: Until here, you have permission to speak; from this point forward you do not have permission to speak, as it is written in the book of Ben Sira: Seek not things concealed from you, nor search those hidden from you. Reflect on that which is permitted to you; you have no business with secret matters. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: What response did the Divine Voice provide to that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14), thereby intending to rise to heaven? A Divine Voice came and said to him: Wicked man, son of a wicked man, descendant, i.e., follower of the ways, of Nimrod the wicked, who caused the entire world to rebel against Him during the time of his reign.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֵין מוֹסְרִין סִתְרֵי תוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים: ״שַׂר חֲמִשִּׁים, וּנְשׂוּא פָנִים, וְיוֹעֵץ, וַחֲכַם חֲרָשִׁים, וּנְבוֹן לָחַשׁ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֵין מוֹסְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה לְגוֹי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן לְכׇל גּוֹי וּמִשְׁפָּטִים בַּל יְדָעוּם״.
Rabbi Ami said: The secrets of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses the following five characteristics: “The captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter” (Isaiah 3:3). And Rabbi Ami said further: The words of Torah may not be transmitted to a gentile, as it is stated: “He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them” (Psalms 147:20).
כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״לְבוּשֵׁיהּ כִּתְלַג חִיוָּר וּשְׂעַר רֵישֵׁיהּ כַּעֲמַר נְקֵא״. וּכְתִיב: ״קְוֻצּוֹתָיו תַּלְתַּלִּים שְׁחוֹרוֹת כָּעוֹרֵב״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּישִׁיבָה, כָּאן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לְךָ נָאֶה בִּישִׁיבָה אֶלָּא זָקֵן, וְאֵין לְךָ נָאֶה בַּמִּלְחָמָה אֶלָּא בָּחוּר.
§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.
״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״. מַאי ״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְשָׁל בָּהֶן — ״יֶשְׁנָן תַּחַת יָדֶךָ״. ״יִשָּׂא בַיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה לֹא תְשִׂימוּנִי קְצִין עָם״. ״יִשָּׂא״ — אֵין יִשָּׂא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. ״לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ״ — לֹא הָיִיתִי מֵחוֹבְשֵׁי בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. ״וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה״ — שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדִי לֹא מִקְרָא וְלֹא מִשְׁנָה וְלֹא גְּמָרָא.
What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.
״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״. מַאי ״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְשָׁל בָּהֶן — ״יֶשְׁנָן תַּחַת יָדֶךָ״. ״יִשָּׂא בַיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה לֹא תְשִׂימוּנִי קְצִין עָם״. ״יִשָּׂא״ — אֵין יִשָּׂא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. ״לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ״ — לֹא הָיִיתִי מֵחוֹבְשֵׁי בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. ״וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה״ — שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדִי לֹא מִקְרָא וְלֹא מִשְׁנָה וְלֹא גְּמָרָא.
What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.
מָה שִׁירָה אָמְרוּ — ״הַלְלוּ אֶת ה׳ מִן הָאָרֶץ תַּנִּינִים וְכׇל תְּהוֹמוֹת ... עֵץ פְּרִי וְכׇל אֲרָזִים ... הַלְלוּיָהּ״. נַעֲנָה מַלְאָךְ מִן הָאֵשׁ, וְאָמַר: הֵן הֵן מַעֲשֵׂה הַמֶּרְכָּבָה. עָמַד רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאָמַר: בָּרוּךְ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנָּתַן בֵּן לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְהָבִין וְלַחְקוֹר וְלִדְרוֹשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה מֶרְכָּבָה. יֵשׁ נָאֶה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְאֵין נָאֶה מְקַיֵּים, נָאֶה מְקַיֵּים וְאֵין נָאֶה דּוֹרֵשׁ. אַתָּה נָאֶה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְנָאֶה מְקַיֵּים. אַשְׁרֶיךָ אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, שֶׁאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ יָצָא מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ.
What song did they recite? “Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters and all depths…fruit trees and all cedars…praise the Lord” (Psalms 148:7–14). An angel responded from the fire, saying: This is the very Design of the Divine Chariot, just as you expounded. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai stood and kissed Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh on his head, and said: Blessed be God, Lord of Israel, who gave our father Abraham a son like you, who knows how to understand, investigate, and expound the Design of the Divine Chariot. There are some who expound the Torah’s verses well but do not fulfill its imperatives well, and there are some who fulfill its imperatives well but do not expound its verses well, whereas you expound its verses well and fulfill its imperatives well. Happy are you, our father Abraham, that Elazar ben Arakh came from your loins.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הֵיכִי גְּמַר תּוֹרָה מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּאַחֵר? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ דַעַת וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת הוּא״. אִם דּוֹמֶה הָרַב לְמַלְאַךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת — יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ, וְאִם לָאו — אַל יְבַקְּשׁוּ תּוֹרָה מִפִּיהוּ!
The Gemara poses a question: And Rabbi Meir, how could he learn Torah from the mouth of Aḥer? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek Torah from his mouth; for he is an angel of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7)? The verse teaches: If the rabbi is similar to an angel of the Lord of hosts, perfect in his ways, they should seek Torah from his mouth; but if not, they should not seek Torah from his mouth.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר — קְרָא אַשְׁכַּח וּדְרַשׁ: ״הַט אׇזְנְךָ וּשְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְלִבְּךָ תָּשִׁית לְדַעְתִּי״, ״לְדַעְתָּם״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לְדַעְתִּי״.
Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Meir found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to My knowledge” (Proverbs 22:17). It does not state “to their knowledge,” but “to My knowledge.” In other words, one must listen to the words of the Sages, despite their flaws, provided that their opinion concurs with that of God.
רַב חֲנִינָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״שִׁמְעִי בַת וּרְאִי וְהַטִּי אׇזְנֵךְ וְשִׁכְחִי עַמֵּךְ וּבֵית אָבִיךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Ḥanina said that one can find support for this idea from here: “Listen, daughter and consider, and incline your ear; forget also your own people and your father’s house” (Psalms 45:11), which likewise indicates that one must listen to the words of a Sage while forgetting, i.e., ignoring, the faulty aspects of his teachings.
קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי? לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּגָדוֹל, הָא בְּקָטָן.
The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, for one source states that one may learn only from a scholar who is perfect in his ways, while the other indicates that it is permitted even to learn from one whose character is flawed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, in which it is permitted to learn from a flawed scholar, is referring to an adult; whereas that case, which prohibits doing so, is referring to a minor, who should learn only from a righteous person, so that his ways are not corrupted by a teacher with flawed character.
אַחֵר מַאי — זֶמֶר יְווֹנִי לָא פְּסַק מִפּוּמֵּיהּ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל אַחֵר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד מִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, הַרְבֵּה סִפְרֵי מִינִין נוֹשְׁרִין מֵחֵיקוֹ.
The Gemara explains: Aḥer, what was his failing? Greek tunes never ceased from his mouth. He would constantly hum Greek songs, even when he was among the Sages. This shows that from the outset he was drawn to gentile culture and beliefs. Similarly, they said about Aḥer: When he would stand after learning in the study hall, many heretical books, which he had been reading, would fall from his lap. Therefore, he was somewhat unsound even when among the Sages.
שָׁאַל נִימוֹס הַגַּרְדִּי אֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כֹּל עֲמַר דְּנָחֵית לְיוֹרָה סָלֵיק? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל מַאן דַּהֲוָה נְקֵי אַגַּב אִימֵּיהּ — סָלֵיק, כֹּל דְּלָא הֲוָה נְקֵי אַגַּב אִימֵּיהּ — לָא סָלֵיק.
The gentile philosopher, Nimos HaGardi, asked Rabbi Meir: Does all wool that enters the cauldron to be dyed emerge colored? In other words, do all those who learn Torah emerge as decent and worthy? He said to him: Whoever was clean when he was with his mother, from the outset, will emerge decent and worthy, but all those who were not clean when they were with their mother will not emerge worthy. One who approaches Torah study having been flawed from the outset will not be properly influenced by it.
כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָתוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם. מַאי הִיא? רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: זֶה הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בַּקֶּשֶׁת. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: זֶה הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר. מִסְתַּכֵּל בַּקֶּשֶׁת, דִּכְתִיב: ״כְּמַרְאֵה הַקֶּשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בֶעָנָן בְּיוֹם הַגֶּשֶׁם כֵּן מַרְאֵה הַנֹּגַהּ סָבִיב הוּא מַרְאֵה דְּמוּת כְּבוֹד ה׳״.
It is taught in the mishna: Whoever has no concern for the honor of his Maker deserves to have never come to the world. The Gemara asks: What is lack of concern for the honor of one’s Maker? Rabbi Abba said: This is one who looks at a rainbow. Rav Yosef said: This is one who commits a transgression in private. They proceed to clarify their opinions: Looking at a rainbow constitutes an act of disrespect toward the Divine Presence, as it is written: “As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezekiel 1:28), and it is a dishonor to God to stare at His likeness.
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: זֶה הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר, כִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה בַּסֵּתֶר, כְּאִילּוּ דּוֹחֵק רַגְלֵי שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדוֹם רַגְלָי״.
Rav Yosef said: This is one who commits a transgression in private, in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Whoever commits a transgression in private, it is as though he pushed away the feet of the Divine Presence, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). If one believes that no one can see what he is doing in private, it is as though he said that God is absent from that place. He is therefore compared to one who attempts to remove God from His footstool.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא הַזָּקֵן: אִם רוֹאֶה אָדָם שֶׁיִּצְרוֹ מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו — יֵלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ, וְיִלְבַּשׁ שְׁחוֹרִין וְיִתְעַטֵּף שְׁחוֹרִין, וְיַעֲשֶׂה מַה שֶּׁלִּבּוֹ חָפֵץ, וְאַל יְחַלֵּל שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּמָצֵי כָּיֵיף לֵיהּ לְיִצְרֵיהּ, הָא — דְּלָא מָצֵי כָּיֵיף לְיִצְרֵיהּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ela the Elder say: If a person sees that his inclination is overcoming him, he should go to a place where he is unknown, and wear black, and wrap himself in black, in the manner of mourners, because he should be ashamed of his weakness, and do there what his heart desires, but let him not desecrate the Name of Heaven in public. This shows that sinning in private is sometimes preferable to the public performance of a transgression. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where one who commits a transgression in public has no concern for the honor of his Maker, occurs when one is capable of overcoming his inclination and fails to do so. That case, where it is preferable to sin in private, occurs when one is incapable of overcoming his inclination. He is therefore advised to, at the very least, refrain from desecrating God’s name in public.
פָּתַח בְּמִזְבֵּחַ וְסִיֵּים בְּשֻׁלְחָן! רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — מִזְבֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר עַל אָדָם, עַכְשָׁיו — שֻׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְכַפֵּר עָלָיו.
As the Gemara has cited the above verse, it clarifies a puzzling aspect of it: The verse began with the word “altar” and ended with the word “table,” both words describing the same item. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say the following exposition: When the Temple is standing the altar atones for a person; now that the Temple has been destroyed, it is a person’s table that atones for him, for his feeding of needy guests atones for his sins.
דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: לֹא יִשְׁפּוֹךְ אָדָם מֵי בוֹרוֹ, וַאֲחֵרִים צְרִיכִים לָהֶם.
As Rav Yosef said: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a valuable moral lesson, that a person should not pour the water from his well when others are in need of it. That is, one should not cause loss in any situation, even when this relates to his own personal life, if he might thereby cause a future loss to others. The same reasoning applies here: If he intends to perform ḥalitza it does not matter to him which of the women he chooses, but if he does so with the one who is fit to others, he thereby disqualifies her from marrying a priest, as the legal status of a woman who underwent ḥalitza is like that of a divorcée. It is therefore preferable to perform ḥalitza with the one who in any case was disqualified from marrying a priest.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִיקְּרִי כָּאן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״, לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגוּדּוֹת אֲגוּדּוֹת? הַאי ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לֹא תַּעֲשׂוּ חַבּוּרָה עַל מֵת!
Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I should read here the verse: “You shall not cut yourselves [titgodedu]” (Deuteronomy 14:1), which is interpreted as meaning: Do not become numerous factions [agudot]. In other words, the Jewish people should be united, rather than divided into disparate groups that act in different ways. Before analyzing this issue, the Gemara asks: This verse: “You shall not cut yourselves,” is required for the matter itself, as the Merciful One is saying: Do not cut yourselves over the dead. How is the halakha concerning factions derived from this apparently straightforward verse?
אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תְגוֹדְדוּ״. מַאי ״תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא. וְאֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תָגוֹדּוּ״. מַאי ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse comes to teach only about the practices of mourning, let the verse state only: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: “You shall not cut yourselves”? Learn from this that it comes for this purpose as well, to teach the prohibition against splitting into factions. The Gemara asks: But in that case, one can say that the entire verse comes for this purpose and does not refer to cutting for the dead at all. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: Lo tagodu, rather than lo titgodedu, both of which mean: You shall not cut. What is the meaning of: “Lo titgodedu”? Conclude two conclusions from it: Both the simple prohibition against making cuts for the dead and the matter of dividing into factions.
אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים לֹא תִּתְיַיבֵּם, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים! בְּבָנִים תְּלָא רַחְמָנָא, מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.
The Gemara objects further: Then a childless woman should not enter into levirate marriage even though the mitzva applies to her; there should be a rabbinic decree due to the case of a woman who has children. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One made levirate marriage dependent upon children; it is well known by everyone that the entire purpose of levirate marriage is to establish one’s brother’s name and that levirate marriage applies only when there are no children. Here, too, there is no likelihood of error.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אִם אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵיהֶם — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו, יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הָכָא נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר בַּחֲלִיצָה, דִּמְקַיֵּים עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara continues with a retraction from Rava: Rava then said, and some say it was actually Rav Ashi who said: That which I said, that the reason for the rabbinic decree was to prevent a second act of intercourse, is not correct, as there is a simpler explanation. As Reish Lakish said about the same matter: In every place that you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition applying to the same matter, if you can fulfill both of them together, this is best, and the positive mitzva does not override the prohibition. And if there is not any possibility of fulfilling both, then let the positive mitzva come and override the prohibition. Here, too, in the case of levirate marriage, it is possible, by way of ḥalitza, to fulfill the positive mitzva and not to transgress the prohibition prohibiting marriage to these women.
אֶלָּא מַאי חוּמְרַיְיהוּ? הָנֵי — אֶפְשָׁר בִּתְשׁוּבָה, הָנֵי — לָא אֶפְשָׁר בִּתְשׁוּבָה.
The Gemara asks: Rather, in what way is deception in measurements more severe than forbidden relations? The Gemara answers: Those who engage in forbidden relations have the possibility of repentance. If one engaged in relations with a forbidden relative he can rectify the sin through repentance. In the case of those who deceive the public with dishonest measures, it is not possible to repent fully because, having deceived the general public, they have no way of returning the money. Whereas generally a thief can return stolen property to its rightful owner, one who used dishonest measures with multiple customers has no way to track them all down in order to return the money.
מֵיתִיבִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁאֵין לָהּ בָּנִים, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ בָּנִים — לֹא תֵּצֵא. וְאִם בָּאוּ עֵדֵי טוּמְאָה, אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהּ כַּמָּה בָּנִים — תֵּצֵא.
The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita that qualifies the previous one: In what case is this statement, that the court removes her from the suspected adulterer, said? It is when she has no children from her first husband. But if she has children from him, she is not required to be divorced from the suspected adulterer. On the contrary, if they were required to divorce, it could strengthen the original rumor and others might suspect that her children are mamzerim. However, if witnesses to her impurity, i.e., her adultery, came and testified that she had relations with this man while she was married, then even if she has several children from the first husband, she is required to be divorced. This implies that a woman without children from her first husband must separate from a man suspected of illicit relations with her on strength of suspicion alone.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וּלְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מִי נִיחָא? מִי קָתָנֵי ״יָפֵרוּ״? ״יָפֵר״ קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — שֶׁעָמְדָה בַּדִּין, וּפָסְקוּ לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ,
And if you wish, say an alternate explanation: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: And as for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, does this resolution that the mishna is only referring to a case where the father and the yavam can nullify her vows together work out well? Did the mishna teach that they can nullify her vows? It teaches that he can nullify her vows in the singular, implying that he nullifies the vows alone and not in conjunction with anyone else. Rather, the mishna must be explained differently: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the yavam, regardless of whether or not he performed levirate betrothal, did not want to consummate the levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza. Therefore, the yevama stood in court so as to compel him to consummate the levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza, and it ruled that he must supply her sustenance. Because she is bound to him and cannot marry another, the court ruled that he was responsible for her livelihood.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקׇבְרוֹ בֵּין רְשָׁעִים גְּמוּרִים.
Rather, Rava said that when Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita that the man is liable due to both prohibitions, for a brother’s wife and for a wife’s sister, he meant to say: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, since indeed he violated two prohibitions, yet he is liable to receive punishment in human courts on only one count. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I ascribe to him liability as though he transgressed twice, yet he is liable to receive punishment on only one count. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make if we consider it as though he transgressed twice? The Gemara answers: It affects the decision whether or not to bury him among the completely wicked. Just as a righteous individual is not buried among the wicked, so too, a wicked individual is not buried among those more wicked than himself. He who violated this prohibition is considered as though he committed two transgressions and not one, and so he would be buried accordingly.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם הָיוּ קְטַנּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיוֹת לֵילֵד — מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָן מִיָּד. וְאִי בְּמֵזִיד, מִי שַׁרְיָא? הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: פִּיתּוּי קְטַנָּה אוֹנֶס נִינְהוּ, וְאוֹנֶס בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מִישְׁרָא שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara comments: This, too, stands to reason from the fact that the latter clause teaches: If they were female minors and unable to bear children, then we immediately return them. And if this had been done intentionally, would it be permitted to return a woman who had engaged in illicit sexual acts to her husband? The Gemara comments: This is not difficult and does not disprove the notion that the act was intentional. Even if the act was intentional, these women would be permitted to return to their husbands. This is because the seduction of a minor girl is considered rape, and after rape a woman is permitted to return to an Israelite husband.
תָּנָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם אִשְׁתּוֹ וְדַעְתּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תַּחֲרֹשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ״.
The Gemara cites an additional statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry his wife when at the same time his intention is to divorce her, because it is stated: “Do not devise evil against your neighbor, as he dwells securely with you” (Proverbs 3:29). It is wrong for one to intend to undermine the feelings of security that another has with him.
אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דַּחְסָה. אִי הָכִי, דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי! דִּידֵיהּ — חָיֵיס עִילָּוֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי: חָיֵיס עִילָּוֵיהּ!
The Gemara suggests a different reason for the prohibition against marrying a woman who is pregnant with the child of another man: Rather, it is due to the damage that could be caused to the fetus by the pressure applied to it at the time of intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife his pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: When it is his own child, he has mercy upon it and tries not to apply too much pressure. The Gemara asks: But here, too, when it is the child of another man, he will have mercy upon it, as certainly one is careful not to cause harm to any human life and will be careful not to press down too hard.
דִּלְמָא אִיעַבַּרָה וּמִעֲכַר חַלְבַהּ, וְקָטְלָה לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי! דִּידֵיהּ — מְמַסְמְסָא לֵיהּ בְּבֵיצִים. וְחָלָב דִּידַהּ נָמֵי, מְמַסְמְסָא לֵיהּ בְּבֵצִים וְחָלָב! לָא יָהֵב לַהּ בַּעַל. (וְלִיתְבְּעִינֵיהּ) [וְתִתְבְּעִינְהוּ] לְיוֹרְשִׁים! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִשָּׁה בּוֹשָׁה לָבֹא לְבֵית דִּין, וְהוֹרֶגֶת אֶת בְּנָהּ.
therefore, one should be concerned that perhaps she will become pregnant and her milk will dry up during pregnancy, and the lack of milk will kill her newborn child. The Gemara asks: If so, even if his wife is pregnant with his own child, the same concern applies. The Gemara explains: For his own child, she will feed [memasmesa] him with eggs and milk as a substitute for the mother’s milk. The Gemara asks: Even if the child is not his, it is still the mother’s child, and for her child she will also feed him with eggs and milk. The Gemara answers: The husband will not give her money to procure food for a child that is not his. The Gemara asks: But she could sue her first husband’s heirs to provide subsistence for the child. Abaye said: A woman is embarrassed to come to court, and therefore she will not obtain enough sustenance for him. Consequently, she effectively kills her son as a result.
שֶׁאִם הָיָה הוּא יֶלֶד וְהִיא זְקֵנָה, הוּא זָקֵן וְהִיא יַלְדָּה, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל יַלְדָּה, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל זְקֵנָה? כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל שֶׁכְּמוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּשִׂים קְטָטָה בְּבֵיתֶךָ.
The baraita explains: Appropriate advice means that if he was a young man and she an elderly woman or if he was an elderly man and she a young woman, they say to him: What do you want with a young woman when you are elderly? Or: What do you want with an elderly woman when you are young? Go after your own kind, i.e., a woman of a similar age, and do not place discord in your household that could be caused by marrying a woman of a significantly different age. From the baraita it is apparent that if consummating the levirate marriage will ultimately lead to contention between the couple, it is preferable to perform ḥalitza. Similarly, in the case of the mishna, marrying four women will likely lead to contention since it is difficult to support so many people, and poverty will lead to strife. Therefore, the yavam should not be allowed to consummate levirate marriages with all of them.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי! עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אַרְבַּע — אִין, טְפֵי — לָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִמְטְיֵיהּ עוֹנָה בְּחֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s case: No, it is necessary to teach that he has permission to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot in the case where it is possible for him to provide for all four women. The Gemara asks: If so, then the same should be true even if there are many more women as well; why does the mishna specifically discuss a case of four women? The Gemara explains: The mishna teaches us good advice; in a case of up to four women, yes, if he can provide for them then it is acceptable to marry all of them. But if there are any more than that, no, he should not, in order that he will be able to meet the conjugal rights of each woman at least once in each month. A Torah scholar is expected to provide conjugal relations once a week. If he marries no more than four women, then that will ensure that each of his wives will receive their conjugal rights at least once a month.
הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: לֹא יִשְׁפּוֹךְ אָדָם מֵי בוֹרוֹ, וַאֲחֵרִים צְרִיכִים לָהֶם.
§ The mishna states: If one of these wives of the deceased brother was fit for the priesthood and one was unfit, ḥalitza should not be performed with the fit woman since doing so would needlessly disqualify her from the priesthood. Rav Yosef said that here, through this mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught the principle that one should not perform an action that will needlessly disadvantage others, and so a person should not spill out water collected in his pit that he does not need when others are in need of it.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רְבוּתָא לְמִחְשַׁב גַּבְרֵי?! הָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּבָבֶל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וּבַר קַפָּרָא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חַלּוֹפֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא וְעַיֹּילֵי זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם, דְּאָמְרִי: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר!
Upon hearing this, Rav Yosef said: Is it so great to enumerate men? The fact that several great Sages held this opinion does not prove that their opinion is the accepted halakha. But there are Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and bar Kappara in Eretz Yisrael, and some say to remove bar Kappara from this list and insert instead the Elders of the South, who all say: With regard to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel.
וּמוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ עֲוֹן לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן נֹחַ נֶהֱרָג עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן.
The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to specifically mention these mitzvot? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because a gentile is executed even on account of stealing less than the value of a peruta, since gentiles are particular about even such a small loss, and an item that a gentile steals is not subject to being returned, i.e., he is not obligated to return it to its owner. Since gentiles are unwilling to separate even from items of little value, a potential convert must be made aware that he if converts, he will be required to relinquish some of his property to others.
[דְּמִתְפַּקַּר בִּשְׁלוּחָא] דְרַבָּנַן, וּמַאן דִּ[מְ]שַׁהֵי שַׁמְתָּא דְרַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, וְלָא אָתֵי לְבֵי דִינָא וְתָבַע לְשַׁמְתֵּיהּ.
And he would lash one who behaves irreverently toward a messenger of the Sages, even if the messenger is not a scholar, as he thereby shows disrespect to the Sages themselves. And he would administer lashes to one who remained under an excommunication of the Sages for thirty days and did not go to the court and petition for the removal of his excommunication after correcting the sin that led to the excommunication in the first place. This behavior demonstrates that he does not care about the excommunication, and is therefore deserving of lashes.
וּמַאן דִּמְבַטֵּל גִּיטָּא, וּמַאן דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא.
And he would further lash one who nullifies a bill of divorce he had earlier sent by declaring in the presence of witnesses that the bill of divorce is nullified. This action is effective, but by doing so he transgresses the rabbinic ordinance of the Sages that bans such an action as it might lead his wife to unlawfully wed another. And he would also flog one who delivers a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce, by informing three people before giving a bill of divorce that he is not doing so of his own free will and he wants to cancel it ahead of time. Here too he will mislead his wife, who will assume it is a valid bill of divorce.
נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ לָא מְנַגֵּיד רַב, אֶלָּא לִמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה וּבְלָא שִׁדּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁדּוּכֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.
The Sages of Neharde’a would say: In all these cases Rav would not flog, apart from the case of one who betrothed by intercourse and without a prior marriage agreement. And there are those who say he would flog a man who betrothed by intercourse even if he did so with a prior marriage agreement, due to the immorality involved, as he must invite witnesses to observe the act.
שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס בִּמְפוּתָּה.
that he does not pay the fine of a seduced woman. One who seduced a woman and does not wish to marry her must pay a fine (see Exodus 22:14–15). Since in this case he did marry her, he is not liable to pay the fine even though he is required to divorce her.
גְּמָ׳ הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה בָּטֵיל, מֵאִשָּׁה לָא בָּטֵיל. מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאָדָם כַּמָּה בָּנִים, אָסוּר לַעֲמוֹד בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ״.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — בָּטֵיל מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּבָטֵיל נָמֵי מֵאִשָּׁה. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל! לָא: אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה בַּת בָּנִים, יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה דְּלָאו בַּת בָּנִים. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לִמְכּוֹר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בִּשְׁבִיל בָּנִים.
And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.
גְּמָ׳ הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה בָּטֵיל, מֵאִשָּׁה לָא בָּטֵיל. מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְאָדָם כַּמָּה בָּנִים, אָסוּר לַעֲמוֹד בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ״. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — בָּטֵיל מִפְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּבָטֵיל נָמֵי מֵאִשָּׁה. נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל! לָא: אֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה בַּת בָּנִים, יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה דְּלָאו בַּת בָּנִים. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לִמְכּוֹר סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בִּשְׁבִיל בָּנִים.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna’s wording that if he already has children he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but he may not neglect the mitzva to have a wife. This supports what Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel, who said: Even if a man has several children, it is prohibited to remain without a wife, as it is stated: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And some say a different version of the inference from the mishna: If he already has children, he may neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply and he may also neglect the mitzva to have a wife. Shall we say this is a conclusive refutation of what Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said? The Gemara responds: No, it means that if he does not have children he must marry a woman capable of bearing children, whereas if he has children he may marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. A practical difference between a man who has children and one who does not is whether he is permitted to sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a woman capable of having children. This is permitted only for one who does not yet have children.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לָמַד תּוֹרָה בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ — יִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה בְּזִקְנוּתוֹ. הָיוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידִים בְּיַלְדוּתוֹ — יִהְיוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידִים בְּזִקְנוּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּבֹּקֶר זְרַע אֶת זַרְעֶךָ וְגוֹ׳״. אָמְרוּ: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אָלֶף זוּגִים תַּלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִגְּבָת עַד אַנְטִיפְרַס, וְכוּלָּן מֵתוּ בְּפֶרֶק אֶחָד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נָהֲגוּ כָּבוֹד זֶה לָזֶה.
Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹהֵב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, וְהַמְכַבְּדָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהַמַּדְרִיךְ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה, וְהַמַּשִּׂיאָן סָמוּךְ לְפִירְקָן — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי שָׁלוֹם אׇהֳלֶךָ״. הָאוֹהֵב אֶת שְׁכֵינָיו, וְהַמְקָרֵב אֶת קְרוֹבָיו, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ,
§ The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife,
וְהַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע לְעָנִי בִּשְׁעַת דׇּחְקוֹ — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״אָז תִּקְרָא וַה׳ יַעֲנֶה תְּשַׁוַּע וְיֹאמַר הִנֵּנִי״.
and who lends a sela to a pauper at his time of need, about him the verse states: “Then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:9).
סִימָן: אִשָּׁה. וְקַרְקַע. עֵזֶר. זֹאת. שְׁתֵּי. הַבְרָכוֹת. תַּגָּרֵי. פָּחֲתִי. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע — אֵינוֹ אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״.
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for a series of statements cited in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Woman; and land; helper; this; two; the blessings; merchants; lowly. The Gemara presents these statements: Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have a wife is not a man, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them…and called their name Adam” (Genesis 5:2). And Rabbi Elazar said: Any man who does not have his own land is not a man, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth He has given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ״: זָכָה — עוֹזַרְתּוֹ, לֹא זָכָה — כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי, כְּתִיב ״כְּנַגְּדוֹ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״כְּנֶגְדּוֹ״. זָכָה — כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, לֹא זָכָה — מְנַגַּדְתּוֹ.
And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will make him a helpmate for him [kenegdo]” (Genesis 2:18)? If one is worthy his wife helps him; if he is not worthy she is against him. And some say a slightly different version: Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in the Torah with a spelling that allows it to be read: Striking him [kenagdo], and we read it as though it said: For him [kenegdo]. If he is worthy she is for him as his helpmate; if he is not worthy she strikes him.
אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ, כְּתִיב: ״אֶעֱשֶׂה לוֹ עֵזֶר״, בַּמָּה אִשָּׁה עוֹזַרְתּוֹ לָאָדָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָדָם מֵבִיא חִיטִּין — חִיטִּין כּוֹסֵס? פִּשְׁתָּן — פִּשְׁתָּן לוֹבֵשׁ? לֹא נִמְצֵאת מְאִירָה עֵינָיו וּמַעֲמִידָתוֹ עַל רַגְלָיו?!
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: It is written: I will make him a helpmate. In what manner does a woman help a man? Elijah said to him: When a man brings wheat from the field, does he chew raw wheat? When he brings home flax, does he wear unprocessed flax? His wife turns the raw products into bread and clothing. Is his wife not found to be the one who lights up his eyes and stands him on his feet?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זְרַע וְלָא תִּזְבֹּין. אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, הָנֵי מִבָּרְכָן. זַבֵּין וְלָא תִּיזּוֹל. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּיסְתַּרְקֵי, אֲבָל גְּלִימָא — לָא מִיתְרַמְיָא לֵיהּ.
Rav Pappa said: Sow your own produce and do not buy it. Even though they are equal to each other in value, these that you sow will be blessed. Conversely, buy your clothes rather than weave [teizul] them yourself. The Gemara comments: This applies only to mats [bistarkei], but with regard to the cloak one wears, perhaps he will not find it precisely to his liking, and therefore he should make his own cloak, which fits his measurements.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי אִשָּׁה רָעָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְקַשְּׁטָא לֵיהּ תַּכָּא וּמְקַשְּׁטָא לֵיהּ פּוּמָּא. רָבָא אָמַר: מְקַשְּׁטָא לֵיהּ תַּכָּא וּמַהְדְּרָא לֵיהּ גַּבָּא.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when a woman is considered a bad wife? Abaye said: She arranges a table for him and arranges her mouth for him at the same time. In other words, although she prepares food for him, she verbally abuses him while he eats. Rava said: She arranges a table for him and then turns her back to him, displaying her lack of interest in his company.
אָמַר רָבָא: אִשָּׁה רָעָה מִצְוָה לְגָרְשָׁהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״גָּרֵשׁ לֵץ וְיֵצֵא מָדוֹן וְיִשְׁבּוֹת דִּין וְקָלוֹן״, וְאָמַר רָבָא: אִשָּׁה רָעָה וּכְתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה — צָרָתָהּ בְּצִדָּהּ. דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: בַּחֲבִרְתַּהּ, וְלָא בְּסִילְתָּא. וְאָמַר רָבָא: קָשָׁה אִשָּׁה רָעָה כְּיוֹם סַגְרִיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דֶּלֶף טוֹרֵד בְּיוֹם סַגְרִיר וְאֵשֶׁת מִדְיָנִים נִשְׁתָּוָה״.
Rava said: It is a mitzva to divorce a bad wife, as it is written: “Cast out the scorner and contention will depart; strife and shame will cease” (Proverbs 22:10). And Rava said: A bad wife whose marriage contract settlement is too large for her husband to pay in the event of a divorce, her rival wife is at her side. In other words, the only way for him to improve matters is to take another wife. As people say in the well-known adage: The way to trouble a woman is with her peer and not with a thorn. And Rava said: A bad wife is as troublesome as a day of heavy rain, as it is stated: “A continual dropping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike” (Proverbs 27:15).
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יִצְחָק אָבִינוּ עָקוּר הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַה׳ לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ״. ״עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לְנוֹכַח״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם עֲקוּרִים הָיוּ. אִי הָכִי: ״וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ״ — ״וַיֵּעָתֵר לָהֶם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה תְּפִלַּת צַדִּיק בֶּן צַדִּיק לִתְפִלַּת צַדִּיק בֶּן רָשָׁע.
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Isaac our father was infertile, as it is stated: “And Isaac entreated the Lord concerning [lenokhaḥ] his wife because she was barren” (Genesis 25:21). It is not stated that he entreated the Lord for [al] his wife, but lenokhaḥ, which can mean opposite, against, or corresponding to; this teaches that they were both infertile. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the verse continue: “And the Lord let Himself be entreated of him”? The verse should say: And the Lord let Himself be entreated of them. The Gemara answers that their prayers were answered due to Isaac, because the prayer of a righteous individual who is the son of a righteous individual is not similar to the prayer of a righteous individual who is the son of a wicked individual, and Rebekah’s father was the wicked Bethuel.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל אָדָם לוֹמַר דָּבָר הַנִּשְׁמָע — כָּךְ מִצְוָה עַל אָדָם שֶׁלֹּא לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁמָע. רַבִּי אַבָּא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תּוֹכַח לֵץ פֶּן יִשְׂנָאֶךָּ הוֹכַח לְחָכָם וְיֶאֱהָבֶךָּ״.
The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מוּתָּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְשַׁנּוֹת בִּדְבַר הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָבִיךְ צִוָּה וְגוֹ׳ כֹּה תֹאמְרוּ לְיוֹסֵף אָנָּא שָׂא נָא וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Ile’a further said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace, as it is stated: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Joseph: Please pardon your brothers’ crime, etc.” (Genesis 50:16–17). Jacob never issued this command, but his sons falsely attributed this statement to him in order to preserve peace between them and Joseph.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Natan says: It is a mitzva to depart from the truth in order to preserve peace, as it is stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). God responded in the next verse that Samuel should say he went to sacrifice an offering, indicating that God commands one to lie in order to preserve peace.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: גָּדוֹל הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁאַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁינָּה בּוֹ, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״וַאֲדוֹנִי זָקֵן״, וּלְבַסּוֹף, כְּתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי״.
It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, departed from the truth for it. As, initially it is written that Sarah said of Abraham: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and in the end it is written that God told Abraham that Sarah said: “And I am old” (Genesis 18:13). God adjusted Sarah’s words in order to spare Abraham hurt feelings that might lead Abraham and Sarah to quarrel.
שְׁלִישִׁית אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא פּוֹסְקֵי צְדָקָה בָּרַבִּים יֵשׁ בָּכֶם וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״נְשִׂיאִים וְרוּחַ וְגֶשֶׁם אָיִן אִישׁ מִתְהַלֵּל בְּמַתַּת שָׁקֶר״. בָּדְקוּ, וְלֹא מָצְאוּ.
In the third year he said to them: Perhaps there are among you those who pledge money to charity in public, but do not actually give any charity. As it is written: “As vapors and wind without rain, so is he that boasts himself of a false gift” (Proverbs 25:14), teaching that one who falsely boasts of making a gift prevents the rain from falling. Once again they examined the matter, but could not find such sinners.
״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל שָׁאוּל וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים״. ״אֶל שָׁאוּל״ — שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד כַּהֲלָכָה, ״וְאֶל בֵּית הַדָּמִים״ — ״עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים״. וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּשָׁאוּל שֶׁהֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים? אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהָרַג נוֹב עִיר הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְפִּיקִין לָהֶם מַיִם וּמָזוֹן, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הֲרָגָן.
The verse continues: “And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites” (II Samuel 21:1). The Gemara explains: “For Saul” means that the Jewish people were punished because he was not eulogized properly. “And for his bloody house” is “because he put to death the Gibeonites.” The Gemara is puzzled by this explanation: Now, where do we find that Saul put to death the Gibeonites? The Gemara clarifies: Rather, because he killed the people of Nob, the city of priests, who would provide the Gibeonites with water and food in exchange for their services, the verse ascribes to him as if he himself had killed them.
קָא תָבַע אֶל שָׁאוּל שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד כַּהֲלָכָה, וְקָא תָבַע עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית הַגִּבְעוֹנִים?! אִין, דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּקְּשׁוּ אֶת ה׳ כׇּל עַנְוֵי אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר מִשְׁפָּטוֹ פָּעָלוּ״, בַּאֲשֶׁר מִשְׁפָּטוֹ — שָׁם פׇּעֳלוֹ.
The Gemara questions this understanding: On one hand, God demands retribution because Saul was not eulogized properly, while on the other hand, He demands retribution because Saul himself put to death the Gibeonites. The Gemara answers: Yes, this is how it should be. As Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Seek the Lord, all the humble of the earth, that have executed [pa’alu] His justice” (Zephaniah 2:3)? Where mention is made of the justice to be carried out against a person, his good deeds [pa’alo] should be mentioned there as well.
אָמַר, שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִים יֵשׁ בְּאוּמָּה זוֹ: הָרַחְמָנִים, וְהַבַּיְישָׁנִין, וְגוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים. רַחְמָנִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וְרִחַמְךָ וְהִרְבֶּךָ״. בַּיְישָׁנִין — דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם״. גּוֹמְלֵי חֲסָדִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִים הַלָּלוּ — רָאוּי לְהִדָּבֵק בְּאוּמָּה זוֹ.
David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
They are merciful, as it is written: “And He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: “And that His fear shall be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one’s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.
They are merciful, as it is written: “And He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: “And that His fear shall be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one’s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וְגוֹ׳״? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוּטָב שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאַל יִתְחַלֵּל שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the story as related by the Bible: But isn’t it written: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers” (Deuteronomy 24:16)? As Saul’s sons had not sinned, why were they put to death? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is better that one letter and one mitzva be uprooted from the Torah in this manner and thereby the name of Heaven not be desecrated in public [parhesya]. The killing of the Gibeonites by the Jewish people constituted a desecration of God’s name. In order to repair the damage, David acquiesced to the Gibeonites’ demands, even though they contradicted Torah law.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מוּטָב שֶׁתֵּעָקֵר אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְיִתְקַדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים וְשָׁבִים אוֹמְרִים: מָה טִיבָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ? הַלָּלוּ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים הֵם. וּמָה עָשׂוּ? פָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בְּגֵרִים גְּרוּרִים. אָמְרוּ: אֵין לְךָ אוּמָּה שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהִדָּבֵק בָּהּ כָּזוֹ. וּמָה בְּנֵי מְלָכִים כָּךְ — בְּנֵי הֶדְיוֹטוֹת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! וּמָה גֵּרִים גְּרוּרִים כָּךְ — יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!
Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: It is better that one letter be uprooted from the Torah and thereby the name of Heaven be sanctified in public. How so? As the gentile passersby would say: What is the nature of these people who have been left hanging here for so long? They were told that these are sons of kings. And what did they do to deserve such a fate? They had laid their hands upon and caused harm to calculating converts who had converted for personal gain and were never permitted to enter into the congregation. Those passersby said: There is no nation as worthy of cleaving to it as this one. If the sons of kings who harmed converts are treated in this manner, all the more so would the sons of ordinary people [hedyotot] be. And if calculating converts are related to in this way, all the more so would this apply to members of the Jewish people themselves.
וּמִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״לְעֵינֵי״ לְמַעוֹטֵי סוֹמִים, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דַּאֲפִילּוּ הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סַנְהֶדְרִין בָּעֵינַן, לְמָה לִי לְמַעוֹטֵי סוֹמִין? מִדְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף נָפְקָא, דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּים בְּצֶדֶק, כָּךְ בֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּים מִכׇּל מוּם,
And since it was necessary to say “before the eyes of” to exclude blind individuals from being judges for ḥalitza, learn from here that even laymen are qualified to be judges for ḥalitza. For if it enters your mind to say that we require expert judges who are fit to sit on the high court of the Sanhedrin, then why do I need to exclude blind individuals? For that matter can be derived from a baraita that Rav Yosef taught, as Rav Yosef taught: Just as a court must be clean in righteousness, as they are careful to judge others justly, and are free of guilt and suspicion, likewise a court must be clean of any physical blemish, with judges who are physically complete.
הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ״ — וְלֹא שְׁלוּחָם, ״וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין לוֹ עֵצָה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ. שֶׁאִם הָיָה הוּא יֶלֶד וְהִיא זְקֵנָה, הוּא זָקֵן וְהִיא יַלְדָּה, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל יַלְדָּה, מָה לְךָ אֵצֶל זְקֵנָה? כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל שֶׁכְּמוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תַּכְנִיס קְטָטָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתְךָ.
The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for him to derive the halakha that is taught in a baraita: “They shall call him” means the judges themselves and not their agents. “They shall speak to him” teaches that they give him counsel appropriate for him concerning whether he should perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza. For example, if he was a young boy and she was elderly, or if he was elderly and she was a young girl, they would tell him not to enter into levirate marriage because: What are you doing with a young girl if you are an old man? What are you doing with an elderly woman if you are a young boy? Go be with someone like yourself, closer to your own age, and do not bring a quarrel into your household, as the age difference will be a cause for disputes and strife later.
אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּזֶבַח וּבְמִנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר, אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר הוּא בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּזֶבַח וּבְמִנְחָה אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר, אֲבָל מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. רַבָּה וְאַבָּיֵי מִדְּבֵית עֵלִי קָאָתוּ, רַבָּה דַּעֲסַק בַּתּוֹרָה — חֲיָה אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, אַבָּיֵי דַּעֲסַק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — חֲיָה שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין.
Apropos this verse, the Gemara mentions what Rabba said with regard to it: With sacrifice and offering, one from the house of Eli will not be atoned for, but he may gain atonement through words of Torah study. Abaye said: Through sacrifice and offering he may not achieve atonement, but he may gain atonement through acts of kindness. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Abaye themselves descended from the house of Eli. Rabba, who immersed himself primarily in Torah study, lived forty years, while Abaye, who immersed himself both in Torah and acts of kindness, lived sixty years. They both lived longer lives than usual for descendants of the house of Eli, due to their actions.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״יַקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. יָכוֹל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״. וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.
As it is taught in a baraita: It is said with regard to some offerings: “He shall offer it” (Leviticus 1:3). This teaches that they may coerce him to bring the offering he owes. I might have thought this means that he brings the offering totally against his will. Therefore, the continuation of that verse states: “In accordance with his will” (Leviticus 1:3). How can these two contradictory expositions be reconciled? They coerce him by imposing fines or penalties until he says: I want to. And similarly, you find the same principle with respect to bills of divorce for women, as it is prohibited for anyone other than the husband to write the bill of divorce, but they coerce him until he says: I want to divorce her, and then write the bill of divorce on his behalf.
גּוּפָא. תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: לְעוֹלָם יִדְבַּק אָדָם בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים: בַּחֲלִיצָה — כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל, דְּתַנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ לְשֵׁם נוֹי, לְשֵׁם אִישׁוּת, לְשֵׁם דָּבָר אַחֵר — כְּאִילּוּ פּוֹגֵעַ בְּעֶרְוָה, וְקָרוֹב בְּעֵינַי לִהְיוֹת הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
§ The Gemara explains the details of the matter itself. Bar Kappara taught: A person should always cling to three things: To ḥalitza; this is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul said: One who marries his yevama for her beauty, or for the sake of matrimony because he wants to be married to her, or for some other reason, such as her money, it is as if he is having intercourse with a woman forbidden to him, and in my eyes it is almost as if his offspring were a mamzer. Therefore, it is preferable that one performs ḥalitza and avoids sin.
בַּהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם וְרׇדְפֵהוּ״,
One should cling to bringing about peace, as it is written “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:15).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אָתְיָא ״רְדִיפָה״ ״רְדִיפָה״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״בַּקֵּשׁ שָׁלוֹם וְרׇדְפֵהוּ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״רוֹדֵף צְדָקָה וָחָסֶד יִמְצָא חַיִּים צְדָקָה וְכָבוֹד״. בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים, כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹדֵר — כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה. וְהַמְקַיְּימוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ קׇרְבָּן.
And Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived by verbal analogy from the terms pursuit and pursuit. It is written here: “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:15) and it is written there: “He who pursues righteousness and mercy finds life, prosperity, and honor” (Proverbs 21:21), indicating that pursuing peace is a mitzva, just as pursuing righteousness and mercy is. As for the nullification of vows, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: With regard to one who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar when it is prohibited to build an altar outside the Temple. And one who fulfills that vow, it is as if he sacrificed an offering on this personal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it is preferable that he ask a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow.
וְיִתְרַחֵק מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים: מִן הַמֵּיאוּנִין — דִּלְמָא גָּדְלָה וּמִיחָרְטָא בָּהּ. מִן הַפִּקְדוֹנוֹת — בְּבַר מָתָא, דְּבַיְיתֵיהּ כִּי בַיְיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי. מִן הָעֵרָבוֹן — בַּעֲרָבֵי שַׁלְצִיּוֹן.
And one should distance himself from three things: From refusals, as perhaps she will grow up and regret her decision, and it will turn out that she refused a husband who was suitable for her. From deposits entrusted to him by an inhabitant of the same city, as he will treat the bailee’s home as his home. The owner might enter the bailee’s house and take the deposit without the latter’s knowledge, and subsequently falsely sue him for its return. From serving as a guarantor: This is referring to Sheltziyyon guarantees, in which the lender is entitled to demand payment from the guarantor even before the borrower defaults on the loan.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״רַע יֵרוֹעַ כִּי עָרַב זָר״ — רָעָה אַחַר רָעָה תָּבֹא לִמְקַבְּלֵי גֵרִים, וְלַעֲרָבֵי שַׁלְצִיּוֹן, וּלְתוֹקֵעַ עַצְמוֹ לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה. מְקַבְּלֵי גֵרִים — כְּרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: קָשִׁים גֵּרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּסַפַּחַת בָּעוֹר.
As Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who serves as a guarantor for a stranger shall suffer evil; but he who hates those who shake hands is secure” (Proverbs 11:15)? This means: Evil after evil will befall those who accept converts, and Sheltziyyon guarantors, and one who confounds himself in matters of halakha. The Gemara clarifies. Evil will befall those who accept converts: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥelbo. As Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a leprous sore on the skin.
עֲרָבֵי שַׁלְצִיּוֹן — דְּעָבְדִי שְׁלוֹף דּוֹץ. תּוֹקֵעַ עַצְמוֹ לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ תּוֹרָה — אֵין לוֹ תּוֹרָה. פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה.
Evil shall befall Sheltziyyon guarantors because they practice: Pull out, thrust in. That is, they pull out the borrower and thrust the guarantor in his place as the one responsible for the loan. Evil befalls one who confounds himself in matters of halakha, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Anyone who says he has no Torah, has no Torah. The Gemara asks: Is this not obvious? Rather, anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah, has nothing other than Torah.
הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ תּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלִמַּדְתֶּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם״ — כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיָּה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּלְמִידָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיָּה אֵינוֹ בִּלְמִידָה.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t this also obvious? One does not receive more reward than he deserves. Rather, it means that he does not even have Torah. What is the reason? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: That you may learn them and perform them, which is an abridged version of the verse “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances that I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and take care to perform them” (Deuteronomy 5:1). The verse teaches that anyone who is engaged in performing mitzvot is engaged in Torah study, while anyone not engaged in performing mitzvot is not engaged in Torah study; the Torah study of one who wishes only to immerse himself in his studies without fulfilling the mitzvot is not considered to be fulfilling even the mitzva of Torah study.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִיתוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, לָא צְרִיכָא דְּקָא מַגְמַר לְאַחֲרִינֵי וְאָזְלִי וְעָבְדִי. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִית לֵיהּ אַגְרָא לְדִידֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
And if you wish, say: Actually, it is as you initially said: Anyone who says he has nothing other than Torah has nothing other than Torah. Rather, this statement is necessary with regard to one who teaches others and they go and perform the mitzvot. Lest you say that there is reward for him in it, Rabbi Yosei teaches us that since that person engaged in Torah study without the intention of observing the mitzvot himself, he does not receive a reward for the mitzvot that he taught others and which they performed.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, תּוֹקֵעַ עַצְמוֹ לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה: בְּדַיָּינָא דְּאָתֵי דִּינָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, וְגָמַר הֲלָכָה וּמְדַמֵּי מִילְּתָא לְמִילְּתָא, וְאִית לֵיהּ רַבָּה וְלָא אָזֵיל מְשַׁאֵיל.
And if you wish, say that one who confounds himself in matters of halakha is referring to a judge who had a case come before him, and he learned the tradition about a ruling in a similar case, and he likens one matter to the other in order to reach a conclusion; and he has a teacher nearby but he does not go and ask him. This is inappropriate, as judges must be very careful not to err in judgment.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: לְעוֹלָם יִרְאָה דַּיָּין עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ חֶרֶב מוּנַּחַת לוֹ בֵּין יְרֵיכוֹתָיו, וְגֵיהִנָּם פְּתוּחָה לוֹ מִתַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה שִׁשִּׁים גִּבּוֹרִים סָבִיב לָהּ מִגִּבּוֹרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳ מִפַּחַד בַּלֵּילוֹת״, מִפַּחַד שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לְלַיְלָה.
As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always view himself as if a sword were placed between his thighs, so that if he leans right or left he will be injured, and as if Gehenna was open beneath him, as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh, because of dread in the night” (Song of Songs 3:7–8), i.e., because of the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani understands the mighty men of Israel in this verse to refer to the judges who sit in judgment around the bed of Solomon, i.e., in the Temple.
אִי בִּקְטַנָּה נִיחָא לֵיהּ — דְּאָתְיָא לִכְלַל דֵּיעָה, אִי בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת נִיחָא — דִּגְדוֹלָה הִיא, וּבַת בִּיאָה הִיא. אֲבָל נָפְלָה מֵאָחִיו חֵרֵשׁ — וַדַּאי בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּבַת בִּיאָה הִיא וּבַת מִינֵּיהּ הִיא.
The Gemara explains: They wondered if the minor was preferable to him, since she eventually would have come to full intellectual capacity when she reached majority, or if the deaf-mute was preferable, since she is an adult and she is suitable for sexual intercourse. Given the uncertainty, it cannot be determined whose initial marriage was more complete and therefore the levirate marriage of one of them cannot exempt her rival wife. However, if she happened before him for levirate marriage as the widow of his brother who was deaf-mute, certainly the female deaf-mute was preferable to him, as she was suitable for sexual intercourse and was of his kind, and therefore the marriage to her was more complete.
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי פָּתַח לֵיהּ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא: ״יֵשׁ בּוֹטֶה כְּמַדְקְרוֹת חָרֶב וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא״ — כֹּל הַבּוֹטֶה רָאוּי לְדוֹקְרוֹ בְּחֶרֶב, אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים מַרְפֵּא.
As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With what did Rabban Gamliel open the possibility for dissolving his vow for that man, i.e., what opening did he find for him? Rabban Gamliel cited the verse: “There is one who utters like the piercings of a sword; but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18) and explained it as follows: Whoever utters a vow deserves to be pierced by a sword, as he might fail to fulfill it. Therefore, one should not vow at all. Had you known that whoever vows is liable to be executed, would you have vowed? Rather, it is the tongue of the wise that heals, as when a Sage dissolves a vow, he dissolves it retroactively, and it is as though one had never taken the vow.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אִם יָבוֹאוּ רְשָׁעִים עַל אָדָם — יְנַעְנֵעַ לוֹ רֹאשׁוֹ. אָמַרְתִּי בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁאָמְרוּ: מַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם סוֹף — מוּתֶּרֶת, מַיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם סוֹף — אֲסוּרָה.
From here the Sages stated: If wicked people come upon a person, he should bend his head before them. That is, he should temporarily restrain himself and not fight them, and he will therefore be saved. After this parenthetical statement, the Gemara returns to Rabban Gamliel’s story. I said at that moment: How great are the words of the Sages, who said: If a man fell into a body of water with a visible end, his wife is permitted to remarry. But in a case of an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying.
דָּרַשׁ בַּר קַפָּרָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיָתֵד תִּהְיֶה לְךָ עַל אֲזֵנֶךָ״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״אֲזֵנֶךָ״, אֶלָּא ״עַל אׇזְנֶךָ״ — שֶׁאִם יִשְׁמַע אָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן,
Bar Kappara taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: And you shall have a peg among your weapons [azenekha]” (Deuteronomy 23:14)? Do not read it as: Your weapons [azenekha]. Rather, read it: On your ear [oznekha], meaning that if a person hears an inappropriate matter,
יַנִּיחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּאׇזְנָיו. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם דּוֹמוֹת לִיתֵידוֹת? מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּמְחַלְּקָן, כׇּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא לְמִילְּתַיהּ עֲבִידָא. דְּאָמַר מָר: זוֹ זֶרֶת. זוֹ קְמִיצָה. זוֹ אַמָּה. זוֹ אֶצְבַּע. זֶה גּוּדָל.
he should place his finger, which is shaped like a peg, into his ears. And that is what Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the fingers of a person similar to pegs? The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Elazar said that fingers are like pegs? If we say that it is due to the fact that they are discrete from each other, each and every finger was designated for its own discrete, sacred matter, as the Master said: This small finger is for measuring a span, the distance between the little finger to the tip of the thumb used in measuring the breastplate of the High Priest; this next finger is used for taking a fistful of the meal-offering; this middle finger is used for measuring a cubit, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger; this one next to the thumb is the finger used to sprinkle the blood of offerings on the altar; this is the thumb, on which the blood and oil is placed in the purification ritual of a leper.
אֶלָּא: מַה טַּעַם מְשׁוּפּוֹת כִּיתֵידוֹת — שֶׁאִם יִשְׁמַע אָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן, יַנִּיחַ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאׇזְנָיו. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה אוֹזֶן כּוּלָּהּ קָשָׁה וְהָאַלְיָה רַכָּה? שֶׁאִם יִשְׁמַע אָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן, יָכוֹף אַלְיָה לְתוֹכָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַל יַשְׁמִיעַ אָדָם לְאׇזְנָיו דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נִכְווֹת תְּחִלָּה לְאֵיבָרִים.
Rather, the question is: What is the reason that they are pointed like pegs? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will place his fingers in his ears. Similarly, a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is the entire ear hard and the earlobe soft? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will bend his earlobe into his ear to seal it. The Sages taught: A person should not allow his ears to hear idle matters. Because of the fact that ears are very sensitive and are the first of the limbs burned, one should make certain not to expose them to anything problematic.
אֶלָּא: מַה טַּעַם מְשׁוּפּוֹת כִּיתֵידוֹת — שֶׁאִם יִשְׁמַע אָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן, יַנִּיחַ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו בְּאׇזְנָיו. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה אוֹזֶן כּוּלָּהּ קָשָׁה וְהָאַלְיָה רַכָּה? שֶׁאִם יִשְׁמַע אָדָם דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן, יָכוֹף אַלְיָה לְתוֹכָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַל יַשְׁמִיעַ אָדָם לְאׇזְנָיו דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נִכְווֹת תְּחִלָּה לְאֵיבָרִים.
Rather, the question is: What is the reason that they are pointed like pegs? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will place his fingers in his ears. Similarly, a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is the entire ear hard and the earlobe soft? It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will bend his earlobe into his ear to seal it. The Sages taught: A person should not allow his ears to hear idle matters. Because of the fact that ears are very sensitive and are the first of the limbs burned, one should make certain not to expose them to anything problematic.
Before discussing the eulogy itself, the Talmud interprets the phrase “His hand is still stretched out.” This implies that God’s judgment is still hanging. Even if a person’s fate has already been sealed in the books of heaven, things could still go wrong.
What is it that a person could do to overturn his good judgement? According to this sugya, it is something as trivial as saying explicitly why the bride is going into the bridal chamber. Everybody knows what is to happen there, but this is a private matter. [If you don’t know what happens in the bridal chamber, I am not saying. I don’t want my decree overturned!]. The wedding in essence is a public celebration of something that should be a private matter between a husband and wife. The rabbis were concerned that the private aspects remain as such.
What is it that a person could do to overturn his good judgement? According to this sugya, it is something as trivial as saying explicitly why the bride is going into the bridal chamber. Everybody knows what is to happen there, but this is a private matter. [If you don’t know what happens in the bridal chamber, I am not saying. I don’t want my decree overturned!]. The wedding in essence is a public celebration of something that should be a private matter between a husband and wife. The rabbis were concerned that the private aspects remain as such.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בָּחוּר הֲוָה. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל כֵּן עַל בַּחוּרָיו לֹא יִשְׂמַח ה׳ וְאֶת יְתוֹמָיו וְאֶת אַלְמְנוֹתָיו לֹא יְרַחֵם כִּי כֻלּוֹ חָנֵף וּמֵרַע וְכׇל פֶּה דֹּבֵר נְבָלָה בְּכׇל זֹאת לֹא שָׁב אַפּוֹ וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה״. מַאי ״וְעוֹד יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה״? אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רַב: הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין כַּלָּה לָמָּה נִכְנְסָה לַחוּפָּה. אֶלָּא, כׇּל הַמְנַבֵּל פִּיו, וּמוֹצִיא דְּבַר נְבָלָה מִפִּיו, אֲפִלּוּ נֶחְתַּם לוֹ גְּזַר דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה לְטוֹבָה — נֶהְפָּךְ עָלָיו לְרָעָה.
And there are those who say that the child who died was not a small child, but a youth, and this is what the disseminator said to him: “Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, nor shall He have compassion on their orphans and widows, for everyone is a flatterer and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks obscenity. For all this His anger is not turned away, and His hand is still outstretched” (Isaiah 9:16). What is the meaning of the phrase “And His hand is still outstretched”? Rav Ḥanan bar Rav said: Everyone knows why a bride enters the wedding canopy. It is the step before consummation of the marriage. However, one should not speak about it unnecessarily, as anyone who profanes his mouth and issues a matter of profanity from his mouth, even if a positive decree of seventy years was sealed for him, nevertheless, it is transformed for him into an evil decree.
In this case Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] sees that these people are just too starving to really be having sexual intercourse successfully. The wife knows that they have not successfully had sex and that she is still a virgin. Rabbi kindly orders them to be fed and bathed. They are then allowed to be intimate again, and the husband finds that his wife indeed was a virgin. I think this is a really important message for rabbis. Their job is to solve problems, to make peace. All of these rabbis could have ruled strictly. But each in their own way found a way out of the problem and a solution such that the couple could continue to live together in marriage. They would have made good marriage counsellors.
Section one: This section provides the basic halakhah that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. Assumedly there are two reasons why a widow (which in this context includes a divorcee) receives a smaller ketubah. First of all, she already received a ketubah from her first marriage, and therefore has some money already saved up. Second, and probably more importantly, there was a need to encourage men to marry widows and divorcees. Most men probably preferred first-time marriages. Second marriages were made cheaper, therefore, to prevent older women from remaining husband-less. Needless to say, that people should be married was an important value to the rabbis.
Section two: The Mishnah now begins to discuss exceptional cases, ones which slightly deviate from the typical first marriage or the typical widow or divorcee. If a woman has been betrothed, but then was divorced before marriage or her husband died before the marriage was completed is in one sense a virgin and in one sense not. She is a virgin in that she has never had sexual relations, but she is a widow or divorcee as well. [Note that in Hebrew the word for virgin “betulah” can mean either a woman whose physical signs of virginity are intact or it can mean a young woman who has never been married. The same ambiguity occurs in the Greek word, “parthenon”.] According to our mishnah, such a woman receives a full ketubah, should she remarry.
A “halutzah” is a woman who has been released from levirate marriage, the obligation to marry one’s dead husband’s brother.
Section two: The Mishnah now begins to discuss exceptional cases, ones which slightly deviate from the typical first marriage or the typical widow or divorcee. If a woman has been betrothed, but then was divorced before marriage or her husband died before the marriage was completed is in one sense a virgin and in one sense not. She is a virgin in that she has never had sexual relations, but she is a widow or divorcee as well. [Note that in Hebrew the word for virgin “betulah” can mean either a woman whose physical signs of virginity are intact or it can mean a young woman who has never been married. The same ambiguity occurs in the Greek word, “parthenon”.] According to our mishnah, such a woman receives a full ketubah, should she remarry.
A “halutzah” is a woman who has been released from levirate marriage, the obligation to marry one’s dead husband’s brother.
כַּלָּה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה חִיגֶּרֶת אוֹ סוֹמָא, אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״? וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִקָּח רַע מִן הַשּׁוּק, יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו, אוֹ יְגַנֶּנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעוֹרֶבֶת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.
This is a famous debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel—should one be honest with a bride about her appearance or should every bride be praised? Bet Hillel holds that despite the untruth, one should always strive to make others feel good, praising them and the things that they have bought. There is no reason whatsoever to tell a bride that she is not beautiful.
What is most fascinating to me about this source is the equation it draws between a bride on her wedding day and the rabbi receiving ordination. Both are described as graceful or beautiful gazelles, despite the fact that they do not wear any makeup or beautify themselves. The image of the physical and feminine beauty of the Torah scholar is common in rabbinic literature and probably represents a rejection of the normal masculine image.
These kind of halakhot are how the rabbis express their value system. The value of a wedding is greater than the value of a funeral procession. While I doubt that such a conflict would in reality occur all that frequently, the rabbis say that the needs of the wedding take precedence.
Finally, royalty and the honor and fear due to royalty take precedence over both. However, the story of Aggripa, who was king over Israel during the Second Temple period, seems to contradict this point—Aggripa forgoes his honor and allows the bridal procession to pass by in front of him. For his willingness to forgo his honor, the sages praise him.
Finally, royalty and the honor and fear due to royalty take precedence over both. However, the story of Aggripa, who was king over Israel during the Second Temple period, seems to contradict this point—Aggripa forgoes his honor and allows the bridal procession to pass by in front of him. For his willingness to forgo his honor, the sages praise him.
The Talmud now detects a problem with Aggripa’s behavior—kings are not supposed to forgo their own honor. We might think of this as respecting the office even if the person holding that office does not feel the need to be respected. So Aggripa should not have allowed the bridal procession to go in front of him.
The resolution is that they were at a crossroads, such that it would not have looked to everyone as if he was letting the procession go in front of him. But had they not been at the crossroads, it would have been forbidden for Aggripa to allow the bridal procession to pass him.
The resolution is that they were at a crossroads, such that it would not have looked to everyone as if he was letting the procession go in front of him. But had they not been at the crossroads, it would have been forbidden for Aggripa to allow the bridal procession to pass him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲבִירִין אֶת הַמֵּת מִלִּפְנֵי כַלָּה. וְזֶה וָזֶה מִלִּפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל אַגְרִיפַּס הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁעָבַר מִלִּפְנֵי כַּלָּה, וְשִׁבְּחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים.
§ The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so.
שִׁבְּחוּהוּ — מִכְּלָל דְּשַׁפִּיר עֲבַד? וְהָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ — כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ — אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל. דְּאָמַר מָר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ! פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים הֲוַאי.
The Gemara asks: The Sages praised him; is that to say by inference that he did well in yielding? But didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who said with regard to a Nasi who relinquishes the honor due him that his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished. As the Master said that the meaning of the verse “You shall place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) is that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah established that the subjects’ awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it. The Gemara answers: It was at a crossroads that he encountered the wedding procession, and the fact that he yielded to the bride was not obvious to onlookers. Therefore, the honor due the king was not compromised.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי שֶׁהָיָה מְבַטֵּל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — כְּשֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ. אֲבָל יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ — אֵין מְבַטְּלִין.
The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study.
In this baraita we again see a hierarchy of values, but a complicated one. In the rabbinic mindset, few things rank higher than the study of Torah. But there are a few exceptions. To a certain extent, the needs of a bride and the burial of the dead take precedent over Torah study. But this is only true in a collective sense—the Torah studying community must ensure that the needs of the dead are taken care of. But, if there are already enough people at the funeral procession, the Torah scholar should continue to study Torah.
וְכַמָּה כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִינִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: תְּרֵיסַר אַלְפֵי גַּבְרֵי, וְשִׁיתָּא אַלְפֵי שִׁיפּוּרֵי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: תְּלֵיסַר אַלְפֵי גַּבְרֵי, וּמִינַּיְיהוּ שִׁיתָּא אַלְפֵי שִׁיפּוּרֵי. עוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּחָיְיצִי גַּבְרֵי מֵאֲבוּלָּא וְעַד סִיכְרָא. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נְטִילָתָהּ — כִּנְתִינָתָהּ, מָה נְתִינָתָהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא, אַף נְטִילָתָהּ בְּשִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמַאן דְּקָרֵי וְתָנֵי,
The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute all his needs? Rav Shmuel bar Eini said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and six thousand additional men each sounding a shofar to herald the approaching funeral procession. And some say: Thirteen thousand men and, among them, six thousand men sounding a shofar. Ulla said: All his needs means a crowd large enough so that the men in the funeral possession form a partition stretching from the gate of the city [abbula] until the cemetery. Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: The number of people required for taking of the Torah from the Jewish people with the death of a Torah scholar is equivalent to the number present at its giving to the Jewish people. Just as its giving took place with six hundred thousand men present at Sinai, so too, the taking of the Torah at the funeral of a Torah scholar is with six hundred thousand men. The Gemara notes: This applies only to one who read the Bible and studied mishna, i.e., one who is a student of Torah, and consequently worthy of that honor.
אֲבָל לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי, לֵית לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא.
However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא אִילּוּ אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: זִילוּ חֲתוּמוּ וְלָא תִּתְקַטְּלוּן, דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי פִּיקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ אֶלָּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים בִּלְבָד. הַשְׁתָּא דַּחֲתַמוּ, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: אַמַּאי חָתְמִיתוּ?
Rava said to him: Now, if the witnesses came before us to consult with the Sages, we say to them: Go sign the document and you should not be killed, as the Master said: You have no matter that stands before saving a life, other than idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and murder. Now that they signed, do we say to them: Why did you sign? Only in those three cases, when faced with a choice between violating the prohibition and being killed, must one be killed rather than violate the prohibition. Signing a false document does not fall into that category. Why then, according to Rabbi Meir, is their testimony that they were compelled to sign the document not accepted?
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁהֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה״. בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: ״אִם אָוֶן בְּיָדְךָ הַרְחִיקֵהוּ״ — זֶה שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטַר פַּסִּים. ״וְאַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה״ — זֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a repaid document within his house, due to the fact that the verse states: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). Even if he does not use the document to collect payment, the concern is that it might fall into the hands of one who will use it illegally to collect payment. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rav: With regard to the first half of the verse: “If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away” (Job 11:14), this is referring to a document of trust and a document of security [passim]. With regard to the second half of the verse: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents,” this is referring to a repaid document.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁהֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה״. בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: ״אִם אָוֶן בְּיָדְךָ הַרְחִיקֵהוּ״ — זֶה שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטַר פַּסִּים. ״וְאַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה״ — זֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a repaid document within his house, due to the fact that the verse states: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). Even if he does not use the document to collect payment, the concern is that it might fall into the hands of one who will use it illegally to collect payment. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rav: With regard to the first half of the verse: “If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away” (Job 11:14), this is referring to a document of trust and a document of security [passim]. With regard to the second half of the verse: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents,” this is referring to a repaid document.
There were two different opinions as to the application of the verse “And let not unrighteousness dwell in your tents.” In today’s section it refers to a paid bill of debt, but in yesterday’s section it referred to a loan deed of trust (the loan never happened). As the Talmud often does, it compares these two applications of the verse. The one who says that holding on to a paid bill of debt is morally wrong would also oppose holding on to a loan deed of trust. However, the opposite is not true. The one who opposes holding on to a loan deed of trust may allow one, under certain circumstances, to hold on to a paid bill of debt, for at times the debt is held by the scribe in order for him to collect his fees.
What was stated about the judge that could disqualify him? The first possibility is the accusation that he is a robber. The problem with this is that he should not be validated by the second set of witnesses, because we have two versus two—two witnesses say he is a thief and two say he is not. This would not be sufficient to validate him as a judge. But if it is a matter of a family blemish (he is a slave-slaves were not allowed to testify) then they could just check into the matter and find out the truth. Why would we even need witnesses?
The resolution is that the first two testified that he is a robber, but the second two do not deny this. Rather they testify that he has repented. This shows the power of repentance. Denial that he was a thief does not validate him to serve as a judge, once proper testimony has been served against him. But he can be restored to being a judge if evidence of repentance is offered.
The resolution is that the first two testified that he is a robber, but the second two do not deny this. Rather they testify that he has repented. This shows the power of repentance. Denial that he was a thief does not validate him to serve as a judge, once proper testimony has been served against him. But he can be restored to being a judge if evidence of repentance is offered.
עַרְעָר דְּמַאי? אִי עַרְעָר דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא —
The Gemara elaborates: With regard to a challenge of what sort was this halakha stated? If it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft,
תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ. אִי עַרְעָר דִּפְגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה, גִּלּוּי מִלְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ עַרְעָר דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא, וְקָאָמְרִי הָנֵי: יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דַּעֲבַד תְּשׁוּבָה.
the witnesses who testified that he is unfit and the judges who testified that he is fit are two witnesses and two witnesses who contradict them, and in that case, the allegation of theft is not completely eliminated. If it was a challenge based on an allegation of flawed lineage, e.g., he is a Canaanite slave and therefore unfit to serve as a judge, that is a mere revealing of a matter that will ultimately be revealed in any case and does not require actual testimony. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest preventing the judges from asserting his fitness after they signed. The Gemara concludes: Actually, I will say to you that it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft, and these judges say: We know about him that he repented and is now fit to serve as a judge. In that case, their testimony does not contradict the original testimony that he was guilty of theft.
If the first witness counts as two, then why should she not be remarried ab initio? After all, there are “two witnesses” who say that her husband is dead?
The answer is that a person should always distance himself from a situation that looks bad. In this situation, even though she is legally allowed to remarry, the evidence is hardly conclusive. There is a chance that her husband really is alive. Therefore, she really should not get remarried when there is such contradictory evidence as to her husband’s death. R. Assi expresses this notion by quoting a verse from Proverbs.
The answer is that a person should always distance himself from a situation that looks bad. In this situation, even though she is legally allowed to remarry, the evidence is hardly conclusive. There is a chance that her husband really is alive. Therefore, she really should not get remarried when there is such contradictory evidence as to her husband’s death. R. Assi expresses this notion by quoting a verse from Proverbs.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: ״הָסֵר מִמְּךָ עִקְּשׁוּת פֶּה וּלְזוּת שְׂפָתַיִם הַרְחֵק מִמֶּךָּ״.
The Gemara asks: If so, that this is a case of the testimony of two witnesses against the testimony of one witness, it should be permitted for her to remarry even ab initio. The Gemara answers that she may not remarry ab initio due to the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said that in any case of uncertainty, the verse “Remove from you a crooked mouth, and perverse lips put far from you” (Proverbs 4:24) applies. Although it is not a strictly prohibited action, it is, nevertheless, inappropriate.
Yohanan says that both mishnayot refer to cases where the girl was a na’arah, and therefore he should, at least in principle, pay the fine. However, Makkot (he is lashed) refers to a case where he was warned before he transgressed and Ketubot refers to a case where he was not warned. Since he was not warned, he cannot be lashed, and therefore pays a fine.
As a note, according to the rabbis no physical punishment (lashes or execution) can ever be carried out unless the perpetrator is first warned by witnesses that if he commits the crime, he will be punished. This is one example of the rabbis’ severe hesitancy to even theoretically punish criminals.
As a note, according to the rabbis no physical punishment (lashes or execution) can ever be carried out unless the perpetrator is first warned by witnesses that if he commits the crime, he will be punished. This is one example of the rabbis’ severe hesitancy to even theoretically punish criminals.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּקוֹפִיץ וּמִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף כָּאן בְּקוֹפִיץ וּמִמּוּל עוֹרֶף? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, in the case of the beheaded calf, it is beheaded with a cleaver [kofitz] and at the nape of the neck, here too the court executes murderers with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the verse says: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), from which it is derived: Choose for him an agreeable death. It is prohibited to abuse a guilty person while executing him, and chopping off his head with a cleaver is an unseemly death. The murderer is beheaded from the neck, not with a cleaver, and not by the other methods employed in beheading the calf.
בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ. דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: סַלֵּיק הֶזֵּיקָךְ, מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְלֹא יַעֲמִיד סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ״.
The Gemara adds: Either way, whether or not he agrees to go to Eretz Yisrael, if he keeps the cause of the damage, we in Babylonia excommunicate him, as we say to him: Remove your cause of damage, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house? It is as it is stated: “And you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one’s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.
״אַשְׁרֵי שׁוֹמְרֵי מִשְׁפָּט עוֹשֵׂה צְדָקָה בְכׇל עֵת״. וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה בְּכׇל עֵת? דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: זֶה הַזָּן בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּמַשִּׂיאָן.
The Gemara discusses a point related to one of the ordinances of Usha. The verse states: “Happy are they who keep justice, who perform charity at all times” (Psalms 106:3). But is it possible to perform charity at all times? Is one always in the presence of paupers? Therefore, our Rabbis in Yavne taught, and some say it was Rabbi Eliezer: This is referring to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are minors. As stated above, he is not formally obligated to support them, and therefore when he does so, it is a form of charity that he gives on a constant basis. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This is referring to one who raises an orphan boy or an orphan girl in his house, takes care of them, and marries them off.
״אַשְׁרֵי שׁוֹמְרֵי מִשְׁפָּט עוֹשֵׂה צְדָקָה בְכׇל עֵת״. וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה בְּכׇל עֵת? דָּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁבְּיַבְנֶה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: זֶה הַזָּן בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו כְּשֶׁהֵן קְטַנִּים. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּמַשִּׂיאָן.
The Gemara discusses a point related to one of the ordinances of Usha. The verse states: “Happy are they who keep justice, who perform charity at all times” (Psalms 106:3). But is it possible to perform charity at all times? Is one always in the presence of paupers? Therefore, our Rabbis in Yavne taught, and some say it was Rabbi Eliezer: This is referring to one who sustains his sons and daughters when they are minors. As stated above, he is not formally obligated to support them, and therefore when he does so, it is a form of charity that he gives on a constant basis. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This is referring to one who raises an orphan boy or an orphan girl in his house, takes care of them, and marries them off.
״הוֹן וָעוֹשֶׁר בְּבֵיתוֹ וְצִדְקָתוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת לָעַד״. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא, חַד אָמַר: זֶה הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה וּמְלַמְּדָהּ. וְחַד אָמַר: זֶה הַכּוֹתֵב תּוֹרָה נְבִיאִים וּכְתוּבִים וּמַשְׁאִילָן לַאֲחֵרִים.
The Sages likewise expounded the verse: “Wealth and riches are in his house, and his charity endures forever” (Psalms 112:3). How can one’s wealth and riches remain in his house while his charity endures forever? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disputed this issue. One said: This is referring to one who studies Torah and teaches it. He loses nothing of his own, while his charity toward others will endure. And one said: This is one who writes scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, and lends them to others. The books remain in his possession, but others gain from his charity.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה הִתְקִינוּ כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין — כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְפּוֹץ אָדָם וְיִכְתּוֹב לְבִתּוֹ כִּבְנוֹ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason did the Sages enact the marriage document concerning male children? It was enacted so that a man will be willing to take the initiative and write an agreement to give his daughter a dowry as large as the portion of his possessions that his son will receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one’s daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הִכְנִיסָה לוֹ מֵאָה שְׁפָחוֹת — כּוֹפָהּ לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּצֶּמֶר, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זִימָּה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה, שֶׁהַבַּטָּלָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי שִׁיעֲמוּם.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he can compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Consequently, it is better for a woman to be doing some kind of work. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy.
וגם אמרו חכמינו זכרונם לברכה: אם אין אדם שוכח מה שלמד, אם כן היה לומד כל התורה כולה, ואחר כך היה הולך בטל. והבטלה מביאה לידי שעמום ולידי עבירה (כתובות נט ב). לכך נגזרה גזרת השכחה, שיהא אדם עוסק בתורה כל ימיו, ומתוך כך אינו בא לידי חטא.
And the Sages also said, "If it were not for the fact that a man forgets the Torah if he does not study it constantly, he would learn all of the Torah and after that he would go idle, and idleness leads a person to boredom and to sin (Kethuboth 5:5; Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan chap. 11). Therefore, it was decreed that the Torah is easily forgotten, so that man would occupy himself with Torah all of his days, and thus not come to sin.
אֲבוּהּ בַּר אִיהִי וּמִנְיָמִין בַּר אִיהִי, חַד סָפֵי מִכֹּל מִינָא וּמִינָא, וְחַד סָפֵי מֵחַד מִינָא. מָר — מִשְׁתַּעֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּמָר — לָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.
הָנְהוּ תַּרְתֵּין חֲסִידֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רַב מָרִי וְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּנֵי רַב חִסְדָּא, מָר קָדֵים סָפֵי, וּמָר מְאַחַר סָפֵי. דְּקָדֵים סָפֵי — אֵלִיָּהוּ מִשְׁתַּעֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, דִּמְאַחַר סָפֵי — לָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, the sons of Rav Ḥisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְסַמֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וְהַמַּצְבֶּה אֶת בִּטְנוֹ, וְהַמְקַפֵּחַ אֶת שׁוֹקוֹ — אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי כָךְ. הַמְקַבֵּל צְדָקָה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכָךְ — סוֹפוֹ אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי כָךְ.
The Gemara cites a baraita relating to swindlers who collect charity. The Sages taught: One who falsely blinds his eye, and one who bloats his stomach as if he were sick, and one who falsely crushes [mekape’aḥ] his leg, in order to benefit dishonestly from charity, will not depart from the world before he comes to this same plight, and he will truly suffer from the ailment that he feigned. More generally, one who receives charity and does not need it, his end will be that he will not depart from the world before he comes to this state of actually needing charity.
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה
§ The mishna states: One who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. The Gemara asks: Granted, when he forbids her from going to a house of feasting,
אִיכָּא נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ, אֶלָּא לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל מַאי נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ אִיכָּא? תָּנָא: לְמָחָר הִיא מֵתָה וְאֵין כׇּל בְּרִיָּה סוֹפְדָהּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין כׇּל בְּרִיָּה סוֹפְנָהּ.
there is effectively an act of locking a door in front of her by withholding from her any possibility of rejoicing, but when he forbids her from going to a house of mourning, what locking of a door in front of her is there? He taught: In the future she too will die, and no person will eulogize her or take care of her, just as she did not do so for others. And some say: No person will value her or pay attention to her, since a person who does not visit the sick or console mourners cuts himself off from others.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא סוֹף כׇּל הָאָדָם וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ״, מַאי ״וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ״? דְּבָרִים שֶׁל מִיתָה: דְּ[יִ]סְפֹּד — יִסְפְּדוּנֵיהּ, דְּ[יִ]קְבַּר — יִקְבְּרוּנֵיהּ, דִּידַל — יְדַלּוּנֵיהּ, דִּ[י]לַוֵּאי — יְלַוּוֹנֵיהּ, דְּ[יִ]טְעֹן — יִטְעֲנוּנֵיהּ.
Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir used to say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, since that is the end of all men, and the living will take it to heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2)? What does “and the living will take it to heart” mean? It means that they will take matters relating to death to heart, realizing that they too will eventually die. He who eulogizes others, people will eulogize him; he who buries someone, people will bury him; he who lifts others to bring them to burial, people will similarly lift him to bring him to burial; he who escorts others out for burial, people will similarly escort him; he who carries others, others will carry him. Therefore, one who does not come to a house of mourning to comfort the bereaved will himself not be treated with proper dignity when he dies.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְידָיו בִּפְנֵי מוֹלָידָיו. וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן יִהְיוּ לִי״. אָמַר רַבָּה: דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״נֵיכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא לְסָבָא בְּאַפֵּי בְּרֵיהּ״.
§ The mishna stated: Abba Shaul says: Also a woman who curses her husband’s parents in his presence violates the precepts of Jewish women. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even when she curses his parents in the presence of his children and not in his presence she is considered one who violates Jewish custom. And your mnemonic is “Ephraim and Manasseh will be to me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5), which teaches that grandchildren have the status of children. Cursing one’s husband’s parents in front of his children is tantamount to doing so in front of the husband himself. Rabba said: An example is that she said in the presence of her husband’s son: May a lion devour your grandfather.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: גּוֹזְרֵי גְזֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע מָנֶה מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, לֹא רָצוּ — מוֹסִיפִין לָהֶם. לֹא רָצוּ? אַטּוּ בְּרַשִּׁיעֵי עָסְקִינַן? אֶלָּא: לֹא סָפְקוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצוּ — מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem would take their wages, ninety-nine maneh, equal to 9,900 dinars per year, from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. If they did not wish to do so, one adds to their wages. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: If they did not wish to do so? Does this mean that if they desired higher wages, they were paid more? Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who demand wages beyond what they need? Rather, on the contrary, Rav Asi said that if their wages were insufficient for their needs, then even if they did not wish to receive higher wages, one adds to their wages so that they may devote themselves to their communal service.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה סְמוּיוֹת עֵינֵיהֶן שֶׁל מְקַבְּלֵי שׁוֹחַד. אָדָם חָשׁ בְּעֵינָיו, נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן לָרוֹפֵא — סָפֵק מִתְרַפֵּא סָפֵק אֵינוֹ מִתְרַפֵּא. וְהֵן נוֹטְלִין שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וּמְסַמִּין עֵינֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר פִּקְחִים״.
Rabbi Abbahu said: Come and see how blind are the eyes of those who accept bribes, and how they ruin themselves. If a person has pain in his eyes, he gives a doctor money, and even then it is uncertain whether he will be healed or whether he will not be healed. And yet those judges take the value of a peruta, a small amount of money as a bribe, and actively blind their eyes, as it is stated: “For a bribe blinds those who have sight” (Exodus 23:8).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים״, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַטִּפְּשִׁין. ״וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים״, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לָרְשָׁעִים. מִידֵּי טִפְּשִׁים וּרְשָׁעִים בְּנֵי דִינָא נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״כִּי הַשּׁוֹחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים״, אֲפִילּוּ חָכָם גָּדוֹל וְלוֹקֵחַ שׁוֹחַד — אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא סַמְיוּת הַלֵּב. ״וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִים״,
The Sages taught: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly blind the eyes of fools. “And perverts the words of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly pervert the statements of the wicked. The Gemara asks: Are fools and the wicked suitable for judgment, i.e., to be appointed as judges? Rather, this is what the tanna of the baraita said: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise”; even if he were very wise but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without suffering blindness of the heart, i.e., he will eventually turn foolish. “And perverts the words of the righteous”;
אֲפִילּוּ צַדִּיק גָּמוּר וְלוֹקֵחַ שׁוֹחַד — אֵינוֹ נִפְטָר מִן הָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא טֵירוּף דַּעַת.
even if he is completely righteous but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without becoming demented.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: דָּרֵשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר כֹּהֵן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה״ — אִם דּוֹמֶה דַּיָּין לְמֶלֶךְ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְלוּם — ״יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ״. וְאִם דּוֹמֶה לְכֹהֵן שֶׁמְּחַזֵּר עַל הַגֳּרָנוֹת — ״יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה״.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rav Naḥman bar Kohen interpreted a verse homiletically as follows. What is the meaning of that which is written: “The king by justice establishes the land, but he who exacts gifts [terumot] overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:4)? If a judge is like a king, in that he does not need anything and is not dependent on anyone, he establishes the land, i.e., he can serve as a judge. But if he is like a priest, who seeks out his terumot from various granaries, as he is dependent on others, he overthrows the land.
אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּשׁוּחְדָּא? כֵּיוָן דְּקַבֵּיל לֵיהּ שׁוּחְדָּא מִינֵּיהּ, אִיקָּרְבָא לֵיהּ דַּעְתֵּיהּ לְגַבֵּיהּ וְהָוֵי כְּגוּפֵיהּ, וְאֵין אָדָם רוֹאֶה חוֹבָה לְעַצְמוֹ. מַאי ״שׁוֹחַד״ — שֶׁהוּא חַד. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא לֵידוּן אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְמַאן דְּרָחֵים לֵיהּ, וְלָא לְמַאן דְּסָנֵי לֵיהּ. דְּרָחֵים לֵיהּ — לָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ חוֹבָה, דְּסָנֵי לֵיהּ — לָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.
Rava said: What is the reason for the prohibition against taking a bribe? Once a judge accepts a bribe from one party, his thoughts draw closer to him and he becomes like his own self, and a person does not find fault in himself. The Gemara notes that the term itself alludes to this idea: What is the meaning of shoḥad, bribe? It can be read as: Shehu ḥad, as he is one, i.e., at one mind with the litigant. Rav Pappa said: A person should not judge a case involving one whom he loves, nor involving one whom he hates. He should not judge one whom he loves, as he will not find any fault in him, while with regard to one whom he hates, he will not find any merit in him.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דִּמְרַחֲמִין לֵיהּ בְּנֵי מָתָא — לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּמְעַלֵּי טְפֵי, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מוֹכַח לְהוּ בְּמִילֵּי דִּשְׁמַיָּא.
Abaye said: With regard to this Torah scholar who is beloved by the residents of his town, it is not because he is a superior Sage than others; rather, it is because he does not reprove them in Heavenly matters. He is beloved because he is not strict with them with regard to the observance of mitzvot.
מַתְנִי׳ ״כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה. ״כְּנִדְרֵי כְשֵׁרִים״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״כְּנִדְבוֹתָם״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן.
MISHNA: The mishna continues to explain the rules of intimations of vows. If an individual states that he accepts an obligation upon himself like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or bringing an offering, or taking an oath. This is considered a real formulation of a vow, just as the wicked customarily take vows. If he says: Like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything, because virtuous people do not generally take vows. If he says: Like their gift offerings, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״טוֹב אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִדֹּר וְגוֹ׳״, טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה — שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹדֵר כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: טוֹב מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה נוֹדֵר וּמְשַׁלֵּם.
This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse “Better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:4), that better than both this and that is one who does not take a vow at all. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than both this and that is one who vows and pays. Consequently, Rabbi Meir advocates abstaining from all vows and Rabbi Yehuda advocates making vows and fulfilling them, but neither of them distinguishes between vows and gift offerings. The mishna, however, indicates that virtuous people do not make vows but do bring gift offerings.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״. וְכִי בְּאֵיזוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא: שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. מִכָּאן כׇּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּתַעֲנִית נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא.
And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב״. מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת. יָצָא נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִּיטֵּל — שֶׁאֵין הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ!
However, the verse states: “Or if anyone swears clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good” (Leviticus 5:4). From the juxtaposition of evil and good it is derived that just as the doing of good, which is interpreted as obligating himself to take a positive action, is referring to a permitted activity, e.g., to eat, so too, the doing of evil, which is interpreted as prohibiting himself from something, refers only to that which is permitted, e.g., not to eat. This excludes one who takes an oath to nullify a mitzva and does not nullify it; he is not liable for violating the oath, as the permission to nullify it is not in his power.
תַּנְיָא: ״בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם״ — זוֹ בּוּשָׁה. ״לְבִלְתִּי תֶחֱטָאוּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבּוּשָׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא. מִיכָּן אָמְרוּ: סִימָן יָפֶה בְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא בַּיְישָׁן. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל אָדָם הַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ, לֹא בִּמְהֵרָה הוּא חוֹטֵא. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדוּ אֲבוֹתָיו עַל הַר סִינַי.
§ It is taught in a baraita: “That His fear may be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17); this is referring to shame, as shame causes one to blush. “That you not sin” (Exodus 20:17) teaches that shame leads to fear of sin. From here the Sages said: It is a good sign in a person that he is one who experiences shame. Others say: Any person who experiences shame will not quickly sin, and conversely, one who does not have the capacity to be shamefaced, it is known that his forefathers did not stand at Mount Sinai.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּיוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֶלָּא כֹּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ — עוֹשֶׂה. מָשָׁל לְבָשָׂר הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַטַּבָּח, רָצָה לְאׇכְלוֹ בְּמֶלַח — אוֹכְלוֹ. צָלִי — אוֹכְלוֹ. מְבוּשָּׁל — אוֹכְלוֹ. שָׁלוּק — אוֹכְלוֹ. וְכֵן דָּג הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַצַּיָּיד.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman.
״וּבָרוֹתִי מִכֶּם הַמֹּרְדִים וְהַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי תֵּשַׁע מִדּוֹת, בְּנֵי אׇסְנַ״ת משגע״ח.
The verse states: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and those that transgress against Me” (Ezekiel 20:38). Rabbi Levi said: These are children of those who have nine traits, who are defective from their conception and from whom rebels and transgressors emerge. The mnemonic for these nine traits is children of the acronym aleph, samekh, nun, tav, mem, shin, gimmel, ayin, ḥet.
בְּנֵי אֵימָה, בְּנֵי אֲנוּסָה, בְּנֵי שְׂנוּאָה, בְּנֵי נִידּוּי, בְּנֵי תְמוּרָה, בְּנֵי מְרִיבָה, בְּנֵי שִׁכְרוּת, בְּנֵי גְּרוּשַׁת הַלֵּב, בְּנֵי עִרְבּוּבְיָא, בְּנֵי חֲצוּפָה.
The children of nine traits are as follows: Children of fear [eima], i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was raped [anusa]; children of a hated woman [senua], i.e., a woman who was hated by her husband; children of ostracism [niddui], i.e., one of the parents was ostracized by the court; children of substitution [temura], i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman; children of strife [meriva], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were quarreling; children of drunkenness [shikhrut], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were drunk; children of a woman who was divorced in the heart [gerushat halev], i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; children of mixture [irbuveya], i.e., the man did not know with which woman he was engaging in intercourse; children of a shameless woman [ḥatzufa] who demands of her husband that he engage in intercourse with her.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעְתּוֹ — הָוְיִין לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא הָיוּ כְּמוֹתָם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם״, וְלָא ״כְּתִיב נְבוֹנִים״.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any man whose wife demands of him that he engage in sexual intercourse with her will have children the likes of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses our teacher? As it is stated: “Get you wise men, and understanding, and well known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13); and it is written subsequently: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well known” (Deuteronomy 1:15). And it does not say that they were understanding. Evidently, even Moses could not find understanding men in his generation.
וּכְתִיב ״יִשָּׂשכָר חֲמֹר גָּרֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״מִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים״!
And by contrast, it is written: “Issachar is a large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14). The Sages transmitted a tradition that this is an allusion to the incident when Jacob came in from the field riding on a donkey, and Leah went out to greet him, saying: “You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Issachar was conceived from their subsequent sexual intercourse. And it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times” (I Chronicles 12:33). The descendants of Issachar were understanding men. It is derived from here that a woman who demands from her husband that he engage in sexual intercourse with her has a positive effect on their children.
הַהִיא דְּמַרְצְיָא אַרְצוֹיֵי.
The Gemara answers: That baraita is not referring to a woman who demands intercourse explicitly, but rather to one who entices her husband, so that he understands that she wants to engage in sexual intercourse with him. They consequently have excellent children.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַכּוֹעֵס כׇּל מִינֵי גֵיהִנָּם שׁוֹלְטִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָסֵר כַּעַס מִלִּבֶּךָ וְהַעֲבֵר רָעָה מִבְּשָׂרֶךָ״, וְאֵין ״רָעָה״ אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל פָּעַל ה׳ לַמַּעֲנֵהוּ וְגַם רָשָׁע לְיוֹם רָעָה״.
§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive.
וְלַישְׁבַּע יָתְהוֹן דִּמְקַיְּימִיתוּן תּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ! תּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, מַשְׁמַע: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמוּרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַכּוֹפֵר בָּהּ — כְּאִילּוּ מוֹדֶה בַּתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: And let him administer an oath: That you fulfill the entire Torah. The Gemara answers: Fulfilling the entire Torah could indicate specifically the denial of idol worship, which is also deemed fulfilling the entire Torah, as it is taught in a baraita: Idol worship is so severe a sin that anyone who denies it is considered as though he concedes to the truth of the entire Torah. The opposite is true for someone who worships idols. Therefore, the Jewish people could have claimed that fulfilling the entire Torah denotes nothing more than not practicing idol worship.
גְּמָ׳ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַתְפֵּיס זָכְווֹתָא בְּבֵי דִינָא, וְאָמַר: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, לִיבַּטְלוּן הָנֵי זָכְווֹתַאי. אִיתְּנִיס וְלָא אֲתָא. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּטִיל זָכְווֹתֵיהּ.
GEMARA: The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who had a dispute in court with another individual and wanted to postpone the trial to a later time in order to search for more evidence. Meanwhile, he deposited his documents for a favorable verdict, i.e., that supported his claim, in court, and since the other litigant did not believe that he would return, the man said: If I do not come back within thirty days, these documents for a favorable verdict will be void. He was impeded by circumstances beyond his control and did not come back. Rav Huna said: His documents for a favorable verdict are void since he did not return by the specified time.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אָנוּס הוּא, וְאָנוּס רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר״.
Rava said to him: He is a victim of circumstances beyond his control and the halakha is that the Merciful One exempted a victim of circumstances beyond his control from responsibility for his actions, as it is written concerning a young woman who was raped: “But unto the damsel you shall do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death” (Deuteronomy 22:26).
מַתְנִי׳ נוֹדְרִין לֶהָרָגִין וְלֶחָרָמִין וְלַמּוֹכְסִין. שֶׁהִיא תְּרוּמָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּכֹּל נוֹדְרִין,
MISHNA: One may take a vow to murderers, i.e., people suspected of killing others over monetary matters; or to robbers [ḥaramin]; or to tax collectors who wish to collect tax, that the produce in his possession is teruma although it is not teruma. One may also take a vow to them that the produce in his possession belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king. One may take a false vow to save himself or his possessions, as a statement of this sort does not have the status of a vow. Beit Shammai say: One may vow in such a case, although he has no intention that his words be true, using every means of taking a vow or making a prohibition in order to mislead those people,
חוּץ מִבִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בִּשְׁבוּעָה.
except for by taking of an oath, due to its more stringent nature. And Beit Hillel say: One may mislead them even by taking an oath.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בְּנֶדֶר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף יִפְתַּח לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה שֶׁהוּא מַדִּירוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בַּמֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַדִּירוֹ.
Beit Shammai say: When negotiating with a robber, one should not initiate by taking a vow for him unless the robber does not believe his claim, in which case he may take a vow to reinforce his words. And Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking a vow to him. Beit Shammai say: One may take a vow only about that which the robber compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow.
גְּמָ׳ וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks, concerning the mishna’s statement that one may take a vow to tax collectors: But didn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., there is a halakhic principle that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live? Since one must pay the tax determined by the kingdom, how did the Sages permit one to lie in order to avoid paying?
אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו.
Rav Ḥinnana said that Rav Kahana said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who has no fixed amount for collection established by the kingdom, but rather collects the tax arbitrarily. Therefore, this case is not included in the law of the kingdom. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who establishes himself as such independently and was not appointed by the kingdom.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: מְאוּסָה הִיא הָעׇרְלָה, שֶׁנִּתְגַּנּוּ בָּהּ רְשָׁעִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי כׇל הַגּוֹיִם עֲרֵלִים״. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה מִילָה, שֶׁנִּכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה בְּרִיתוֹת.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The foreskin is repulsive, as is evident from the fact that the wicked are disgraced through it, as it is stated: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision: Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25), which indicates that there is an element of disgrace associated with the foreskin. Rabbi Yishmael says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that thirteen covenants were sealed with regard to it, for the word covenant appears thirteen times in the biblical passage that discusses circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר קַפָּרָא לְרַבִּי: מַאי ״תּוֹעֵבָה״? כֹּל דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי דְּהָכֵין הוּא ״תּוֹעֵבָה״, פַּרְכַהּ בַּר קַפָּרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פָּרְשֵׁיהּ אַתְּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תֵּיתֵי דְּבֵיתְכִי תִּירְמֵי לִי נַטְלָא. אֲתָת רָמְיָא לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי: קוּם רְקוֹד לִי, דְּאֵימַר לָךְ: הָכִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״תּוֹעֵבָה״ — תּוֹעֶה אַתָּה בָּהּ.
Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi at the wedding: What is the meaning of the word to’eva, abomination, used by the Torah to describe homosexual intercourse (see Leviticus 18:22)? Whatever it was that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara in explanation, claiming that this is the meaning of to’eva, bar Kappara refuted it by proving otherwise. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You explain it. Bar Kappara said to him: Let your wife come and pour me a goblet of wine. She came and poured him wine. Bar Kappara then said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Arise and dance for me, so that I will tell you the meaning of the word: This is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah in the word to’eva: You are straying after it [to’e ata bah], i.e., after an atypical mate.
לְכָסָא אַחֲרִינָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי ״תֶּבֶל״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ כִּי עִנְיָינָא קַדְמָאָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עִיבֵיד לִי דְּאוֹמַר לָךְ. עֲבַד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״תֶּבֶל הוּא״ — תַּבְלִין יֵשׁ בָּהּ. מִי שָׁנְיָא הָדָא בִּיאָה מִן כּוּלְּהוֹן בִּיאוֹת?
When they came to drink another cup, bar Kappara said to him: What is the meaning of the word tevel, perversion, as in the verse: “Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion [tevel]” (Leviticus 18:23)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said various explanations to him, as he did the previous time, which were all refuted again by bar Kappara. Bar Kappara then said to him: Perform for me as you did before, so that I will tell you. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so. Bar Kappara then said to him that the phrase: “It is tevel” means: Does it have any spice [tevalin yesh bah]? Is this act of sexual intercourse with an animal different than all other acts of sexual intercourse, which would cause one to engage in such a repulsive action?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמַאי ״זִימָּה״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עִיבֵיד כִּי עִנְיָינָא קַדְמָאָה. עֲבַד וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ מָה הִיא. לָא יְכֵיל בֶּן אֶלְעָשָׂה לְמִיסְבַּל, קָם וּנְפַק הוּא וְאִינְתְּתֵיהּ מִתַּמָּן.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: And what is the meaning of the word zimma, lewdness, as in the verse: “They are near kinswomen; it is lewdness [zimma]” (Leviticus 18:17), stated with regard to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter? He said to him: Perform for me as you did the previous time. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, and bar Kappara said to him that zimma means: What is she [zo ma hi]? This man would be confused about how to refer to his wives; his wife is also his other wife’s mother or daughter. Ben Elasa could not tolerate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s humiliation, so he and his wife arose and left the wedding.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲמַר לִי מָרִימָר, הָכִי אֲמַר אֲבוּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב [יוֹסֵף]: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא שְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא — כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל הַנּוֹדֵר — כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה, וְהַמְקַיְּימוֹ — כְּאִילּוּ מַקְטִיר עָלֶיהָ.
Ravina said: Mareimar said to me: Your father said as follows, in the name of Rav Yosef: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha taught by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built a personal altar, which is forbidden because one must bring all offerings to the Temple. And one who fulfills the vow, is as though he burns portions meant for the altar in the Temple upon it, i.e., the personal altar, thereby increasing his sin. Consequently, even after he has fulfilled the vow, it is preferable for him to ask a halakhic authority to annul it entirely, so that it will be as if he never took a vow.
תַּנְיָא: ״לְאַהֲבָה אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמוֹעַ בְּקֹלוֹ וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם: אֶקְרָא שֶׁיִּקְרָאוּנִי ״חָכָם״, אֶשְׁנֶה שֶׁיִּקְרָאוּנִי ״רַבִּי״, אֲשַׁנֵּן שֶׁאֶהְיֶה זָקֵן וְאֵשֵׁב בִּישִׁיבָה.
Apropos the story of Rabbi Tarfon’s regret for gaining personal benefit from his status as a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites similar teachings. It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20). This verse indicates that a person should not say: I will read the written Torah so that they will call me a Sage; I will study Mishna so that they will call me Rabbi; I will review my studies so that I will be an Elder and will sit in the academy.
אֶלָּא לְמַד מֵאַהֲבָה, וְסוֹף הַכָּבוֹד לָבֹא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קׇשְׁרֵם עַל אֶצְבְּעֹתֶיךָ כׇּתְבֵם עַל לוּחַ לִבֶּךָ״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ וְתֹמְכֶיהָ מְאֻשָּׁר״.
Rather, learn out of love, as the verse states: “To love the Lord your God.” And the honor will eventually come of its own accord, as it is stated: “Bind them upon your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3), and it states: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17), and it states: “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it; happy is everyone who holds it fast” (Proverbs 3:17). Consequently, one who studies in order to master Torah for its own sake, as reflected in the verse “bind them upon your fingers,” will eventually merit pleasantness, peace, and happiness.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: עֲשֵׂה דְּבָרִים לְשֵׁם פׇּעֳלָם, וְדַבֵּר בָּהֶם לִשְׁמָם. אַל תַּעֲשֵׂם עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֵּל בָּהֶם, וְאַל תַּעֲשֵׂם קוּרְדּוֹם לִהְיוֹת עוֹדֵר בּוֹ. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בֵּלְשַׁצַּר שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּכְלֵי קֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ כְּלֵי חוֹל — נֶעְקַר מִן הָעוֹלָם, הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכִתְרָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: Do things for the sake of their performance, not for any ulterior motive, and speak words of Torah for their own sake. Do not make them a crown with which to become glorified, and do not make them nor make them a dolabra [kordom] with which to hoe, i.e., do not use Torah study as a means of earning a livelihood. And this is an a fortiori inference: If Belshazzar, who made use only of sacred vessels that had become non-sacred vessels, was uprooted from the world, one who makes use of the crown of Torah, whose sanctity is permanent, all the more so shall he be uprooted from the world.
רָבָא רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וְעַבְדְּךָ יָרֵא אֶת ה׳ מִנְּעוּרָיו״, וּכְתִיב: ״יְהַלֶּלְךָ זָר וְלֹא פִיךָ״! הָא — בְּאַתְרָא דְּיָדְעִי לֵיהּ, הָא — בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא יָדְעִי לֵיהּ.
Rava raises a contradiction: It is written that Obadiah spoke highly of himself: “But I, your servant, have feared the Lord from my youth.” And it is written: “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth” (Proverbs 27:2). He answers: This verse is referring to a place where people know him, where he should not praise himself, whereas that verse is referring to a place where people do not know him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — חָשׁוּב כְּמֵת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָבָה לִּי בָנִים וְאִם אַיִן מֵתָה אָנֹכִי״. וְתַנְיָא, אַרְבָּעָה חֲשׁוּבִין מֵת: עָנִי, וּמְצוֹרָע, וְסוֹמֵא, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים. עָנִי — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מֵתוּ כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים״. מְצוֹרָע — דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״. וְסוֹמֵא — דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּמַחֲשַׁכִּים הוֹשִׁיבַנִי כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם״. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״הָבָה לִּי בָנִים וְאִם אַיִן מֵתָה אָנֹכִי״.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Any person who does not have children is considered like a dead person. The source is as is stated in the words Rachel said to Jacob: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1). And it was taught in a baraita: Four are considered as if they were dead: A pauper, and a leper, and a blind person, and one who has no children. A pauper, as it is written: “For all the men are dead” (Exodus 4:19). As explained above, they were not actually dead but had descended into poverty, and yet they were considered dead. A leper, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not, I pray, be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12). And a blind person, as it is written: “He has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6). And one who has no children, as it is written: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1).
מַתְנִי׳ וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ מִן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: אִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹבֵר עַל ״לֹא תִקֹּם״, וְעַל ״לֹא תִטֹּר״, וְעַל ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״, ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, ״וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ״, שֶׁהוּא עָנִי וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְפַרְנָסוֹ. אָמַר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא כֵּן, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.
MISHNA: And Rabbi Meir further said: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with him from that which is written in the Torah, and they may say to him: Had you known that through your vow you are transgressing the prohibition “you shall not take vengeance” (Leviticus 19:18) and the prohibition “nor bear any grudge” (Leviticus 19:18), and the prohibition “you shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), as well as “and your brother should live with you” (Leviticus 25:36), as he, the one prohibited by the vow, is poor and now you are not able to provide him with a livelihood due to your vow, would you have vowed in that case? If he said in reply: Had I known that it is so, that my vow involved all these prohibitions, I would not have vowed; it is dissolved.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא לְרַבָּנַן: נֵימָא, כֹּל דְּמִעֲנֵי לָאו עֲלַי נָפֵיל. מַאי דְּמָטֵי לִי לְפַרְנְסוֹ — בַּהֲדֵי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְפַרְנַסְנָא לֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כׇּל הַנּוֹפֵל, אֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל לִידֵי גַבַּאי תְּחִלָּה.
GEMARA: Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina said to the Sages: But let the one who stated the vow say with regard to the last claim: All who become poor do not fall upon me; it is not my responsibility to provide for this specific poor person. What is placed upon me to provide for him together with everyone else, I will provide to him when I give money to those collecting for the communal charity fund. They said to him: I say that anyone who falls into poverty and requires assistance does not fall into the hands of the charity collector first. Rather, his descent begins when he encounters hard times, and it is at this stage that he may require individual, direct support to prevent him from plunging into a state of absolute poverty.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִזָּהֲרוּ בְּעַרְבּוּבִיתָא. הִזָּהֲרוּ בַּחֲבוּרָה. הִזָּהֲרוּ בִּבְנֵי עֲנִיִּים, שֶׁמֵּהֶן תֵּצֵא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִזַּל מַיִם מִדַּלָּיו״, שֶׁמֵּהֶן תֵּצֵא תּוֹרָה.
§ With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.
והנה גלוי ומבואר. שזאת הדרך אש היא עד אבדון תאכל ח''ו. והורס כמה יסודות התוה''ק ודרז''ל. וכבר הזכרנו לעיל סוף שער א'. שהעיקר בכל המצות הוא חלק המעשה. וטהרת המחשבה אינה אלא מצטרפת למעשה. ולמצוה ולא לעכובא ע''ש. וכן מבואר לכל משכיל ישר הולך: שהרי קיי''ל בענין הקרבת הקרבנות דסתמן כלשמן דמי. וכן אמרו להדיא (נזיר כ''ג א') באוכל את הפסח לשם אכילה גסה נהי דלא קא עביד מצוה מן המובחר פסח מיהו קעביד. ואם יחשוב האדם בעת חיוב הקרבת הפסח ועת חיוב אכילתו כוונות נוראות של ענין הפסח במחשבה גבוה שבגבוהות וטהורה שבטהורות וחדל מעשות הפסח ונכרתה הנפש ההיא. וכ''ה בכל המצות:
And so that way, it’s clear and understood, is like a fire that consumes all (heaven forefend), and destroys many of the foundations of the holy Torah and the words of our rabbis (OBM). We’ve already mentioned previously (at the end of Gate 1) that the essential part of all the commandments is the performance; purity of heart/ mind is just a supplement to the performance of the commandment, and its lack is not a hindrance to the fulfillment of the commandment (refer there [for more details]). And so too it is understood by any intelligent person on the straight path that it’s been established (Z’vakhim 2b) in the context of offering a sacrifice, that one offered without a specific intention is considered identical to one having a specific intention. And they plainly confirmed this (Nazir 23a) regarding one who eats the Passover sacrifice with the intention of gluttony, that even though his performance is not an especially fine one, he still fulfills the requirement of the Passover. But if, during the designated time for offering the Passover sacrifice and the designated time for eating it, a person should think awesome intentions regarding the matter of the Passover sacrifice via thoughts that are the loftiest of the loftiest and the purest of the pure, but didn’t actually offer the Passover sacrifice, that person’s soul-Neffesh is cut off, and similarly with all the other commandments.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקְּדָמַתָּה בְּכִירָה לִצְעִירָה,
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: A person should always come first with regard to a matter of a mitzva, as in reward of the one night that the elder daughter of Lot preceded the younger for the sake of a mitzva,
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵת מִצְוָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: בְּאַחְרִינֵי מִיחַיַּיב, בְּאָבִיו לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you speak of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]? This halakha certainly does not apply to a case of this kind. For now consider, if one can say that to bury others, i.e., non-relatives, he is obligated to become ritually impure, as even priests and nazirites must become impure to bury an unattended corpse, then with regard to a met mitzva who is his father is it not all the more so the case that he must become impure to bury him even if his head is severed?
אַלְמָא קָסָבְרִי דְּאָסוּר לְקַנּאוֹת.
Apparently, both Reish Lakish and Rav Yeimar bar Rabbi Shelemya hold that it is prohibited to issue a warning. Both are of the opinion that the word kinnui is a term for anger. Since causing anger is a negative trait, it follows that it is prohibited to issue a warning.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זְנוּתָא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תּוּקְפָּא בְּבֵיתָא כִּי קַרְיָא לְשׁוּמְשְׁמָא. אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּאִיתְּתָא, אֲבָל בְּגַבְרָא לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses matters related to sin and sexual impropriety. Rav Ḥisda says: Licentious behavior in a home causes damage like a worm [karya] causes damage to sesame [shumeshema]. And Rav Ḥisda says: Anger in a home causes damage like a worm causes damage to sesame. The Gemara comments: Both this and that, i.e., that licentious behavior and anger destroy a home, were said with regard to the woman of the house, but with regard to the man, although these behaviors are improper, we do not have the same extreme consequences with regard to it, as the woman’s role in the home is more significant, resulting in a more detrimental result if she acts improperly.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״בְּעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״ — ״בְּעַד כִּכַּר לֶחֶם עַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, לְסוֹף מְבַקֵּשׁ כִּכַּר לֶחֶם.
Rava said: This phrase: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: “On account of a loaf a man is brought to a harlot.” Rather, Rava says the verse should be interpreted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with a harlot will eventually be reduced to poverty and beg people for a loaf of bread.
וּמַאי ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — לְבַסּוֹף נִכְשָׁל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״.
§ The Gemara now continues the interpretation of the above quoted verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any person who has arrogance within him will eventually stumble by sinning with an adulteress, as it is stated: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life,” i.e., she sins with one who considers himself precious.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה״ — ״נֶפֶשׁ גְּבוֹהָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְעוֹד: ״הִיא תָּצוּד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ לָמַד תּוֹרָה דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים״, מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְנָס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״הִיא תְּצוּדֶנּוּ״ — לְדִינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
Rava said: This phrase: “The precious life,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: An arrogant life. And further, it should have stated: A precious life, she hunts for the adulteress, indicating that the precious soul will entrap the adulteress, and not vice versa, as the verse indicates as written. Rather, Rava says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if that man studied Torah, about which it is written: “She is more precious than rubies [peninim]” (Proverbs 3:15), which, based on its etymological connection with the Hebrew term for the Holy of Holies, lifnai velifnim, is interpreted by the Sages to mean that one who studies Torah is more precious than a High Priest, who enters the innermost sanctum, still, this transgression of adultery will entrap him into the judgment of Gehenna, and the Torah he studied will not be able to save him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְלָא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he were an idol worshipper, as it is written here: “Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), and it is written there concerning the destruction of idols: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26).
מַאי ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה״? אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְנָהוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״הֲרִימֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה׳ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
Having interpreted the phrase: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), the Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse. What is the meaning of: “Hand to hand, he shall not be unpunished” (Proverbs 16:5)? Rav says: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if he were to have attributed possession of heaven and earth to the Holy One, Blessed be He, just as Abraham our forefather did, that it is written with regard to him: “I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:22), he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. Abraham is described as one whose hands were lifted to declare the glory of God, yet this verse declares that even if one who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse were to use his hands in the same way, still, due to his sin, the verse says: “He shall not be unpunished.”
אֲפִילּוּ עוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה בַּסֵּתֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַתָּן בַּסֵּתֶר יִכְפֶּה אָף וְגוֹ׳״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
Even if the one who committed adultery performs charitable deeds secretly, as alluded to in the phrase “hand to hand,” and even if one might think that one who does so will go unpunished, as it is written with regard to charity of this kind: “A gift in secret pacifies wrath” (Proverbs 21:14), nevertheless, he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשָּׁם אוֹרְחוֹתָיו בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וְשָׂם״, אֶלָּא ״וְשָׁם דֶּרֶךְ״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also says: Whoever appraises his ways in this world, i.e., whoever carefully considers all his actions before deciding on the proper mode of conduct, merits and sees the salvation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “And to him that orders his way aright [vesam derekh] will I show the salvation of God” (Psalms 50:23). Do not read it as “vesam,” “that orders”; rather, read it as vesham derekh, that appraises his way.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.
MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life.
וְאוֹמֵר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂין.
And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors.
עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם כְּדַי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכׇל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ.
The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain.
וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל הַגָּדָה, וּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁאֵירְעוּ בִּכְתוּבִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כְּגוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם״.
§ The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יְהוּדָה דְּאוֹדִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּישָּׂרֵף תָּמָר. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּאוֹדִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲצִיף עֲלַי דִּמְפָרֵיט חֶטְאֵיהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיחַשְׁדוּ אֲחוֹהִי.
The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.
וְכִי תֵּימָא לַעֲבֵיד בַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ — בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process.
לֵימָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: בִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִצַּעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: צַעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִבִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Naḥman is a dispute between tanna’im, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one’s degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.
מַתְנִי׳ בְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד — בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם נִוְּולָהּ. הִיא גִּלְּתָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם גִּלָּה עָלֶיהָ. בַּיָּרֵךְ הִתְחִילָּה בַּעֲבֵירָה תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן — לְפִיכָךְ תִּלְקֶה הַיָּרֵךְ תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַגּוּף לֹא פָּלַט.
MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סוֹטָה נָתְנָה עֵינֶיהָ בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָהּ, מַה שֶּׁבִּיקְּשָׁה — לֹא נִיתַּן לָהּ, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדָהּ — נְטָלוּהוּ מִמֶּנָּה. שֶׁכׇּל הַנּוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְּמַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ — מַה שֶּׁמְבַקֵּשׁ אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ — נוֹטְלִין הֵימֶנּוּ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (4:16–19): The sota placed her eyes, fixed her gaze, on one who is unfit for her, i.e., another man, so this is her punishment: That which she desired, i.e., to be with her paramour, is not given to her, as she becomes forbidden to him forever. And that which she had, i.e., her husband, was taken away from her, as she is now forbidden to him as well. This teaches that anyone who places his eyes on that which is not his is not given what he desires, and that which he had is taken from him.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁכִּסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל כַּלָּה שֶׁהִיא צְנוּעָה בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ — זוֹכָה וְיוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים. מְנָלַן — מִתָּמָר. נְבִיאִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ״. מְלָכִים — מִדָּוִד. וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: דָּבָר זֶה מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ: אָמוֹץ וַאֲמַצְיָה — אַחִים הֲווֹ.
Rabbi Elazar says: The verse means that Tamar covered her face in the home of her father-in-law, Judah. Therefore, he did not recognize her when her face was uncovered. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Any daughter-in-law who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar. Prophets emerged from her, as it is written: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). Kings emerged from her, as seen from David. And Rabbi Levi says: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. This indi-cates that Isaiah was also from the house of David and therefore a descendant of Tamar.
״וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה״. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ מֵימָר! אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: נוֹחַ לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיַּפִּיל עַצְמוֹ לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים. מְנָלַן — מִתָּמָר.
The verse concerning Tamar then states: “She sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: And let her say to him explicitly that she was impregnated by him. Rav Zutra bar Tuviyya says that Rav says, and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more amenable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace if faced with the choice of publicly embarrassing another or remaining silent even if it leads to being burned, and not humiliate another in public. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as she was prepared to be burned if Judah did not confess, rather than humiliate him in public.
״כִּי אָמַר אֵין לִי בֵן״. וְלָא הֲווֹ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּנִים וּבַת אַחַת״! אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ בֵּן הָגוּן לַמַּלְכוּת. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר, גְּמִירִי: כׇּל הַשּׂוֹרֵף תְּבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ בֵּן לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ. וְאִיהוּ קַלְיַיהּ לִדְיוֹאָב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עֲבָדָיו רְאוּ חֶלְקַת יוֹאָב אֶל יָדִי וְלוֹ שָׁם שְׂעֹרִים לְכוּ וְהַצִּיתוּהָ בָאֵשׁ וַיַּצִּיתוּ עַבְדֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת הַחֶלְקָה בָּאֵשׁ״.
The Gemara continues its discussion of Absalom. The verse states concerning Absalom: “For he said: I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name; and it is called Absalom’s monument to this day” (II Samuel 18:18). The Gemara asks: And did Absalom not have sons? But isn’t it written: “And to Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter” (II Samuel 14:27)? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: He meant that he did not have a son worthy for royalty. Rav Ḥisda said: It is learned as a tradition: Anyone who burns the produce of another does not leave a son to inherit from him, and he, Absalom, burned the produce of Joab, as it is written: “Therefore he said to his servants: See, Joab’s field is near mine, and he has barley there; go and set it on fire. And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire” (II Samuel 14:30).
וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה מִרְיָם וְכוּ׳. מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — חֲדָא שַׁעְתָּא, הָכָא — שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא: וּלְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן.
§ The mishna teaches: And the same is so with regard to the reward for good deeds. Miriam waited for the baby Moses for one hour at the shore of the Nile; therefore, the Jewish people delayed their travels in the desert for seven days to wait for her when she was smitten with leprosy. The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? There, Miriam waited one hour, while here, the Jewish people waited for her for seven days. Abaye said: Say this with a slight change: And with regard to the repaying of good it is not so, as a person is not rewarded precisely measure for measure, as the reward may be greater than the good deed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא ״וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה, דִּבְאוֹתָהּ מִדָּה, וּלְעוֹלָם מִדָּה טוֹבָה מְרוּבָּה מִמִּדַּת פּוּרְעָנוּת.
Rava said to him: But the tanna taught in the mishna: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds. Rather, Rava said: This is what the mishna is teaching: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds. It is rewarded with the same measure, i.e., a person is rewarded in the same manner as the good deed, but the measure of good is always greater than the measure of punishment. Therefore, Miriam was rewarded in the same manner as, but in a greater measure than, her deed.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַחֲרֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תֵּלֵכוּ״, וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְאָדָם לְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר שְׁכִינָה? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵשׁ אוֹכְלָה הוּא״!
And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “After the Lord your God shall you walk, and Him shall you fear, and His commandments shall you keep, and unto His voice shall you hearken, and Him shall you serve, and unto Him shall you cleave” (Deuteronomy 13:5)? But is it actually possible for a person to follow the Divine Presence? But hasn’t it already been stated: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24), and one cannot approach fire.
אֶלָּא, לְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה הוּא מַלְבִּישׁ עֲרוּמִּים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כׇּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם״ — אַף אַתָּה הַלְבֵּשׁ עֲרוּמִּים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּיקֵּר חוֹלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה׳ בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא״ — אַף אַתָּה בַּקֵּר חוֹלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִיחֵם אֲבֵלִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ״ — אַף אַתָּה נַחֵם אֲבֵלִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קָבַר מֵתִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״ — אַף אַתָּה קְבוֹר מֵתִים.
He explains: Rather, the meaning is that one should follow the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He. He provides several examples. Just as He clothes the naked, as it is written: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21), so too, should you clothe the naked. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, visits the sick, as it is written with regard to God’s appearing to Abraham following his circumcision: “And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre” (Genesis 18:1), so too, should you visit the sick. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, consoles mourners, as it is written: “And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son” (Genesis 25:11), so too, should you console mourners. Just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, buried the dead, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab” (Deuteronomy 34:6), so too, should you bury the dead.
דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: תּוֹרָה תְּחִלָּתָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְסוֹפָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. תְּחִילָּתָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ כׇּתְנוֹת עוֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם״, וְסוֹפָהּ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״.
Rabbi Samlai taught: With regard to the Torah, its beginning is an act of kindness and its end is an act of kindness. Its beginning is an act of kindness, as it is written: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). And its end is an act of kindness, as it is written: “And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab” (Deuteronomy 34:6).
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטַּאת נָזִיר תְּהֵא טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר, דְּאָמַר: נָזִיר נָמֵי חוֹטֵא הוּא.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, then the sin-offering of a nazirite should require libations, because it is not brought on account of a sin. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who says: The nazirite is also a sinner, since he denies himself wine unnecessarily.
דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה זָכוּ — שְׁכִינָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. לֹא זָכוּ — אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתָּן.
§ Rabbi Akiva taught: If a man [ish] and woman [isha] merit reward through a faithful marriage, the Divine Presence rests between them. The words ish and isha are almost identical; the difference between them is the middle letter yod in ish, and the final letter heh in isha. These two letters can be joined to form the name of God spelled yod, heh. But if due to licentiousness they do not merit reward, the Divine Presence departs, leaving in each word only the letters alef and shin, which spell esh, fire. Therefore, fire consumes them.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּדְאִשָּׁה עֲדִיפָא מִדְּאִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא — הַאי מְצָרֵף, וְהַאי לָא מְצָרֵף.
Rava said: And the fire that consumes the woman is stronger and more immediate than that which consumes the man. What is the reason for this? The letters alef and shin in the word isha are adjacent, joined together, but in the word ish they are not joined, as the letter yod is written between them.
מַאי ״בּוֹז יָבוּזוּ לוֹ״? אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא כְּשִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה, וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה,
The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah.
אֶלָּא כְּהִלֵּל וְשֶׁבְנָא. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: הִלֵּל וְשֶׁבְנָא אַחֵי הֲווֹ. הִלֵּל עֲסַק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁבְנָא עֲבַד עִיסְקָא. לְסוֹף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּא נַעֲרוֹב וְלִיפְלוֹג! יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אִם יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת כׇּל הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה? כְּגוֹן דְּקָא טָבְעָה אִיתְּתָא בְּנַהֲרָא, וְאָמַר: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְאִיסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בַּהּ וְאַצּוֹלַהּ.
§ The mishna continues: He, Rabbi Yehoshua, would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman, and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Who is considered a foolish man of piety? For example, it is one who sees that a woman is drowning in a river, and he says: It is not proper conduct to look at her while she is undressed and save her.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי רָשָׁע עָרוּם? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה הַמַּטְעִים דְּבָרָיו לַדַּיָּין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן דִּינָר לְעָנִי לְהַשְׁלִים לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז — לֹא יִטּוֹל לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. הָיָה לוֹ מָאתַיִם חָסֵר דִּינָר, אֲפִילּוּ אֶלֶף נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְּאַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה יִטּוֹל.
The Gemara asks: Who is considered a conniving wicked person? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is one who presents his statement to the judge before the other litigant comes and thereby prejudices the judge in his favor. Rabbi Abbahu says: This is referring to one who gives a dinar to a poor man in order to complete the sum of two hundred dinars for him, so that he will no longer be entitled to receive charity, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 8:8): One who has two hundred dinars may not collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, and the poor man’s tithe, since he is not defined as poor. However, if he has two hundred less one dinar, even if he is given one thousand dinars at once, he may collect.
רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא עֵצָה לִמְכּוֹר בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁקָּדְמוּ וּמָכְרוּ בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין — מַה שֶּׁמָּכְרוּ מָכְרוּ.
Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to male orphans to sell from the small quantity of property left to them by their father, before it is appropriated by the court for the purpose of providing for the daughters, who do not inherit property. This causes the daughters to lose their right to sustenance, because although it is improper to do so, the sale is valid, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to male orphans who preemptively sold the property from a small estate, that which they sold, they sold, and the sons retain the money.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא עֵצָה לִמְכּוֹר בִּנְכָסִים כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּתַנְיָא: ״נְכָסַי לְךָ, וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי״, וְיָרַד הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמָכַר וְאָכַל — הַשֵּׁנִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר רִאשׁוֹן.
Abaye says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to sell property in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: My property is given to you, and after you die, to so-and-so, and the first beneficiary entered the property and sold it and consumed the profits, the second beneficiary repossesses the property from the purchasers, as the property belongs to him after the death of the first beneficiary; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second beneficiary receives only that which the first beneficiary left, since his sale is valid. However, it is not permitted to sell the property ab initio, since the giver intended for the second beneficiary to receive the property.
רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זֶה הַמַּכְרִיעַ אֲחֵרִים בְּאוֹרְחוֹתָיו. רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זֶה הַמֵּיקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וּמַחְמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים. עוּלָּא אָמַר: זֶה
Rav Yosef bar Ḥama says that Rav Sheshet says: A conniving wicked person is one who persuades others with his ways, convincing others to mimic his seemingly righteous behavior, in order to hide his faults. Rabbi Zerika says that Rav Huna says: A conniving wicked person is one who is lenient in the halakha for himself and strict for others. Ulla says: This
שֶׁקָּרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.
is one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars in order to learn the reasoning behind the halakhot. Since he believes himself knowledgeable, he issues halakhic rulings, but due to his lack of understanding he rules erroneously and is therefore considered wicked. His cunning is in his public display of knowledge, which misleads others into considering him a true Torah scholar.
שֶׁקָּרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.
is one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars in order to learn the reasoning behind the halakhot. Since he believes himself knowledgeable, he issues halakhic rulings, but due to his lack of understanding he rules erroneously and is therefore considered wicked. His cunning is in his public display of knowledge, which misleads others into considering him a true Torah scholar.
אִתְּמַר: קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה כּוּתִי.
It was stated: With regard to one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars, Rabbi Elazar says: This person is an ignoramus. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This person is a boor. Rabbi Yannai says: This person is comparable to a Samaritan, who follows the Written Torah but not the traditions of the Sages.
רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מָגוֹשׁ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: רָטֵין מָגוֹשָׁא וְלָא יָדַע מַאי אָמַר, תָּנֵי תַּנָּא וְלָא יָדַע מַאי אָמַר.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This person is comparable to a sorcerer [magosh], who uses his knowledge to mislead people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, as people say proverbially: The sorcerer chants and does not know what he is saying; so too, the tanna teaches the Mishna and does not know what he is saying.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית בְּבִרְכוֹתֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵינוֹ מְגַדְּלָן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרֵא וְשׁוֹנֶה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — זֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ.
§ The Sages taught: Who is an ignoramus [am ha’aretz]? It is anyone who does not recite Shema in the morning and evening with its blessings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is anyone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: It is anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef said: It is anyone who has sons and does not raise them to study Torah. Aḥerim say: Even if one reads the Written Torah and learns the Mishna but does not serve Torah scholars, he is an ignoramus.
קָרָא וְלֹא שָׁנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר, לֹא קָרָא וְלֹא שָׁנָה — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְזָרַעְתִּי אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוּדָה זֶרַע אָדָם וְזֶרַע בְּהֵמָה״.
If one read the Written Torah but did not learn the Mishna, he is a boor. With regard to one who did not read and did not learn at all, the verse states: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast” (Jeremiah 31:26). One who has not studied at all is comparable to a beast.
מַאי ״קָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הַמְבַעֵט בְּרַבּוֹתָיו.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a child whose months of gestation were not completed? Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete Torah scholar who scorns his teachers.
רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: זֶה תַּלְמִיד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמוֹרֶה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי רַבִּים חֲלָלִים הִפִּילָה וַעֲצוּמִים כׇּל הֲרוּגֶיהָ״. ״כִּי רַבִּים חֲלָלִים הִפִּילָה״ — זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמוֹרֶה. ״וַעֲצוּמִים כׇּל הֲרוּגֶיהָ״ — זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וְאֵינוֹ מוֹרֶה.
Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not yet attained the ability to issue halakhic rulings, and yet he issues rulings and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child. This is as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For she has cast down many wounded; and a mighty host are all her slain” (Proverbs 7:26)? “For she has cast down [hippila] many wounded”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has not yet attained the ability to issue rulings, and yet he issues rulings. “And a mighty host [ve’atzumim] are all her slain”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has attained the ability to issue rulings, but does not issue rulings and prevents the masses from learning Torah properly.
וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שִׁבְעָה פְּרוּשִׁין הֵן: פָּרוּשׁ שִׁיכְמִי, פָּרוּשׁ נִקְפִּי, פָּרוּשׁ קִיזַּאי, פָּרוּשׁ מְדוּכְיָא, פָּרוּשׁ ״מָה חוֹבָתִי וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״, פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה, פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה.
§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear.
פָּרוּשׁ שִׁיכְמִי — זֶה הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה שְׁכֶם. פָּרוּשׁ נִקְפִּי — זֶה הַמְנַקֵּיף אֶת רַגְלָיו. פָּרוּשׁ קִיזַּאי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: זֶה הַמַּקִּיז דָּם לַכְּתָלִים. פָּרוּשׁ מְדוּכְיָא — אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דִּמְשַׁפַּע כִּי מְדוּכְיָא.
The Gemara explains: The righteous of Shechem [shikhmi]; this is one who performs actions comparable to the action of the people of Shechem, who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self-flagellating righteous; this is one who injures his feet, as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says that this is one who lets blood by banging his head against the walls because he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The pestle-like righteous; Rabba bar Sheila says that this is one who walks bent over like the pestle of a mortar.
פָּרוּשׁ ״מָה חוֹבָתִי וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״. הָא מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מָה חוֹבָתִי תּוּ וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״.
With regard to the righteous one who says: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, the Gemara asks: Isn’t this virtuous behavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? Rather, this is referring to one who says: Tell me what further obligations are incumbent upon me and I will perform them, indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations.
פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה, פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לְתַנָּא: לָא תִּיתְּנֵי פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ.
The baraita also includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. Abaye and Rava said to the tanna who transmitted this baraita: Do not teach in the baraita: Those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and in performance of the mitzvot even if he does not do so for their own sake, as through performing them not for their own sake, one comes to perform them for their own sake.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּמִטַּמְּרָא מִטַּמְּרָא, וּדְמִגַּלְּיָא מִגַּלְּיָא, בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה לִיתְפְּרַע מֵהָנֵי דְּחָפוּ גּוּנְדֵי. אֲמַר לַהּ יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא לִדְבֵיתֵיהּ: אַל תִּתְיָרְאִי מִן הַפְּרוּשִׁין, וְלֹא מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינָן פְּרוּשִׁין, אֶלָּא מִן הַצְּבוּעִין שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִפְרוּשִׁין, שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶן כְּמַעֲשֵׂה זִמְרִי וּמְבַקְּשִׁין שָׂכָר כְּפִנְחָס.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין עוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה לְעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה? אִיכָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה, שֶׁזֶּה תָּלוּי לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. וְזֶה תָּלוּי לְאַלְפַּיִם דּוֹר.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there between one who performs mitzvot out of love and one who performs mitzvot out of fear? The Gemara answers: There is that which is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Greater is the one who performs mitzvot out of love than the one who performs mitzvot out of fear, as with regard to this one who acts out of fear, his merits endure for one thousand generations, and with regard to that one who serves God out of love, his merits endure for two thousand generations.
הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר״!
The Gemara asks: But there also, in the second verse, it is written: “The faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and mercy with those who love Him and keep His commandments for a thousand generations” (Deuteronomy 7:9). Why is the verse interpreted specifically with regard to those who worship God out of fear, yet it is written that they keep His mitzvot out of love? Both types of people seem to be indicated in both verses.
הַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ וְהַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: That verse, which mentions one thousand generations, is understood as referring to that which is adjacent to it. The phrase “for a thousand generations” is understood as referring those who perform mitzvot out of fear, as it is written immediately preceding the phrase “and keep His commandments,” which does not mention love. And this verse, which mentions thousands of generations, is understood as referring to that which is adjacent to it: “Unto thousands of generations of those who love Me.”
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם אוֹמֵר שִׁבְחוֹ בְּקוֹל נָמוּךְ וּגְנוּתוֹ בְּקוֹל רָם.
The distinction between merely saying, and speaking and saying, is significant, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A person should say his own praise in a soft voice, and say that which is to his discredit in a loud voice.
לָא תֵּימָא גְּנוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא צַעֲרוֹ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְטָמֵא טָמֵא יִקְרָא״ — צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ צַעֲרוֹ לָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְבַקְּשִׁים עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ דָּבָר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ לָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְבַקְּשִׁים עָלָיו רַחֲמִים.
The Gemara corrects the previous statement: Do not say that one should say that which is to his discredit in a loud voice; rather, say that one should publicize his pain in a loud voice. As it is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And will cry: Impure, impure” (Leviticus 13:45), that a leper must publicize the fact that he is ritually impure. He must announce his pain to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf. And similarly, anyone to whom a painful matter happens must announce it to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא אֵימַת צִבּוּר עָלֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי כֹּהֲנִים פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם וַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי שְׁכִינָה.
§ Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The awe of the public should always be upon you, i.e., one must always treat the public courteously. As when the priests bless the people they face the people and their backs are toward the Divine Presence, out of respect for the congregation.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: מֵהָכָא: ״וַיָּקׇם דָּוִיד הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל רַגְלָיו וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמָעוּנִי אַחַי וְעַמִּי״. אִם ״אַחַי״ לָמָּה ״עַמִּי״, וְאִם ״עַמִּי״ לָמָּה ״אַחַי״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָמַר לָהֶם דָּוִד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: אִם אַתֶּם, שׁוֹמְעִין לִי — אַחַי אַתֶּם, וְאִם לָאו — עַמִּי אַתֶּם, וַאֲנִי רוֹדֶה אֶתְכֶם בְּמַקֵּל.
Rav Naḥman said that this principle is derived from here: “Then King David stood up upon his feet, and said: Hear me, my brethren, and my people” (I Chronicles 28:2). Evidently, King David stood up to address the people rather than remain seated. If he said “my brethren,” why did he say “my people”? And if he said “my people” why did he say “my brethren”? Rabbi Elazar says: David said to the Jewish people: If you listen to me, you are my brethren. And if you do not listen to me willingly, you are my people and I am your king, and I will rule over you by force with a staff. This shows that if the nation acted properly, David would relate to them respectfully.
דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר מַעְרְבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: מוּתָּר לְהַחְנִיף לִרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִקָּרֵא עוֹד לְנָבָל נָדִיב וּלְכִילַי לֹא יֵאָמֵר שׁוֹעַ״, מִכְּלָל דְּבָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שְׁרֵי.
Rabbi Yehuda of the West, Eretz Yisrael, and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated concerning the future: “The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble” (Isaiah 32:5). By inference, this indicates that in this world it is permitted to flatter them.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים וַתִּרְצֵנִי״.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that this can be proven from here. Jacob said to Esau: “I have seen your face, as one sees the face of angels, and you were pleased with me” (Genesis 33:10). Jacob flattered him by comparing seeing him to seeing a divine vision.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: מָשָׁל שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁזִּימֵּן אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִכִּיר בּוֹ שֶׁמְבַקֵּשׁ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: טְעַם תַּבְשִׁיל זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם כְּתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁטָּעַמְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ. אָמַר: יָדַע לֵיהּ מַלְכָּא, מִיסְתְּפֵי וְלָא קָטֵיל לֵיהּ.
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in interpreting Jacob’s statement, disagrees with Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: With regard to the interaction between Jacob and Esau, to what is this matter comparable? To a person who invited another to his home and the guest realized that he wants to kill him. The guest said to him: The flavor of this dish that I taste is like a dish that I tasted in the king’s house. The host then said to himself: The king must know him. Therefore, he was afraid and did not kill him. Similarly, when Jacob told Esau that his face is like the face of an angel, he intended to let him know that he had seen angels, in order to instill fear in him so that Esau would not seek to harm him.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה מֵבִיא אַף לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחַנְפֵי לֵב יָשִׂימוּ אָף״, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִשְׁמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יְשַׁוְּעוּ כִּי אֲסָרָם״.
Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him brings wrath to the world, as it is stated: “But those with flattery in their hearts bring about wrath” (Job 36:13). And moreover, his prayer is not heard, as it is stated in that same verse: “They do not cry for help when He binds them.”
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה — אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּרִין שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִמָּן מְקַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֹמֵר לְרָשָׁע צַדִּיק אָתָּה יִקְּבֻהוּ עַמִּים יִזְעָמוּהוּ לְאֻמִּים״, וְאֵין ״קוֹב״ אֶלָּא קְלָלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: לֹא ״קַבֹּה אֵל״, וְאֵין ״לְאוֹם״ אֶלָּא עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְאֹם מִלְּאֹם יֶאֱמָץ״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him, even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs curse him, as it is stated: “He who says to the wicked: You are righteous, peoples shall curse him [yikkevuhu], nations [leummim] shall execrate him” (Proverbs 24:24); and kov, the linguistic root of the word yikkevuhu, means only a curse, as it is stated: Balaam explained that he did not curse the Jewish people, as he said: “How can I curse [ekkov] whom God has not cursed [kabbo]?” (Numbers 23:8). And le’om is homiletically interpreted to mean only fetuses, as it is stated with regard to Jacob and Esau, when they were still in Rebecca’s womb: “And one people [le’om] shall be stronger than the other people [le’om]” (Genesis 25:23).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע וְגוֹ׳״, מָה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו: ״לָכֵן כֶּאֱכֹל קַשׁ לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ וַחֲשַׁשׁ לֶהָבָה יִרְפֶּה וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). What is written afterward? “Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours straw, and as the chaff is consumed by the flame” (Isaiah 5:24), meaning that the people described in the earlier verse will end up burning like straw in the fires of Gehenna.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמַּחְנִיף לַחֲבֵירוֹ — סוֹף נוֹפֵל בְּיָדוֹ, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל בְּיָדוֹ — נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בָּנָיו, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בָּנָיו — נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בֶּן בְּנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא [לַחֲנַנְיָה] אָמֵן כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה ה׳ יָקֵם ה׳ אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב:
And Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who flatters another ultimately falls into his hands. And if he does not fall into his hands, he falls into his children’s hands. And if he does not fall into his children’s hands, he falls into his grandchild’s hands, as it is stated: “Then the prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah…Amen, the Lord should do so, the Lord should perform your words” (Jeremiah 28:5–6). This was a form of flattery, as Jeremiah did not explicitly say that Hananiah was a false prophet. And it is written:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל עֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲנוּפָּה — מְאוּסָה כְּנִדָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עֲדַת חָנֵף גַּלְמוּד״, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְנִדָּה גַּלְמוּדָה. מַאי ״גַּלְמוּדָה״ — גְּמוּלָה מִבַּעְלָהּ.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Any congregation in which there is flattery is as repulsive as a menstruating woman, as it is stated: “For a flattering congregation shall be desolate [galmud]” (Job 15:34), and in the cities overseas they call a menstruating woman galmuda. What is the meaning of the word galmuda? It means separated [gemula] from her husband [mibbala].
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל עֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲנוּפָּה — לְסוֹף גּוֹלָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי עֲדַת חָנֵף גַּלְמוּד״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְאָמַרְתְּ בִּלְבָבֵךְ מִי יָלַד לִי אֶת אֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי שְׁכוּלָה וְגַלְמוּדָה גֹּלָה וְסוּרָה וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Any congregation in which there is flattery is ultimately exiled. It is written here: “For a flattering congregation shall be desolate [galmud]” (Job 15:34), and it is written there: “Then you will say in your heart: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have been bereaved of my children, and am solitary [galmuda], an exile, and wandering?” (Isaiah 49:21). The verse states: “An exile,” as an appositive to “galmuda,” indicating that they are the same.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע כִּיתּוֹת אֵין מְקַבְּלוֹת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה: כַּת לֵיצִים, וְכַת חֲנֵיפִים, וְכַת שַׁקָּרִים, וְכַת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע.
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: Four classes of people will not greet the Divine Presence: The class of cynics, and the class of flatterers, and the class of liars, and the class of slanderers.
כַּת לֵיצִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת לֹצְצִים״. כַּת חֲנֵיפִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא לְפָנָיו חָנֵף יָבוֹא״. כַּת שַׁקָּרִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי״.
The proof for this statement is as follows: The class of cynics, as it is written: “He draws His hand from cynics” (Hosea 7:5), i.e., God does not want to be in their presence; the class of flatterers, as it is written: “That a flatterer cannot come before Him” (Job 13:16); the class of liars, as it is written: “He who speaks falsehood shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7).
כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגֻרְךָ רָע״, צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ — לֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.
The class of slanderers will not greet the Divine Presence, as it is written: “For You are not a god who has pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not sojourn with You” (Psalms 5:5), which means: You, the Lord, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your dwelling place. “Evil” here is referring to slanderers, as is evident from the continuation of the chapter, which states: “For there is no sincerity in their mouth; their inward part is a yawning gulf, their throat is an open tomb, they make smooth their tongue” (Psalms 5:10).
״דְּאָגָה בְלֶב אִישׁ יַשְׁחֶנָּה״, רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי חַד אָמַר: יַשִּׂחֶנָּה מִדַּעְתּוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר: יְשִׂיחֶנָּה לַאֲחֵרִים.
In a similar vein, one is urged to relieve his distress. The verse states: “If there is a care in the heart of a man, let him bend it [yashḥena]” (Proverbs 12:25). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi dispute the verse’s meaning. One said: He should force it [yasḥena] out of his mind. He should remove his worries from his thoughts. And one said: It means he should tell [yesiḥena] his troubles to others, which will relieve his anxiety.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: מֵת תּוֹפֵס אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לִקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹעֵג לָרָשׁ חֵרֵף עֹשֵׂהוּ״.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: A corpse occupies four cubits with regard to the exemption from the recitation of Shema, so that it is prohibited to recite Shema within this space, as it is written in the verse: “Whoever mocks the poor blasphemes his Maker” (Proverbs 17:5). Because the deceased cannot perform mitzvot, one who performs a mitzva in front of them is considered to be mocking them.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה״, ״אֲשֶׁר נָטַע״, ״אֲשֶׁר אֵרַשׂ״, לִימְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ: שֶׁיִּבְנֶה אָדָם בַּיִת, וְיִטַּע כֶּרֶם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאַף שְׁלֹמֹה אָמַר בְּחׇכְמָתוֹ: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״. ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה בַּיִת, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה כֶּרֶם, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה.
§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:20-21): The Torah states: “What man is there that has built” (Deuteronomy 20:5), and then “that has planted” (Deuteronomy 20:6), and finally “that has betrothed” (Deuteronomy 20:7). The Torah has taught a person the desired mode of behavior: A person should build a house, then plant a vineyard, and afterward marry a woman. And even King Solomon said in his wisdom: “Prepare your work outside, and make it fit for yourself in the field; and afterward build your house” (Proverbs 24:27). The Sages explained: “Prepare your work outside”; this is a house. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is a vineyard. “And afterward you shall build your house”; this is a wife.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה מִשְׁנָה, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — זֶה גְּמָרָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה גְּמָרָא, ״אַחַר וּבָנִית בֵיתֶךָ״ — אֵלּוּ מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה וּגְמָרָא, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — אֵלּוּ מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר.
Alternatively, this verse may be understood as relating to Torah study: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is the study of Mishna. “Afterward you shall build your house”; this is the study of Gemara, the analysis of and deliberation over the statements of the Sages. Alternatively: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible and Mishna. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is the study of Gemara. “Afterward you shall build your house”; these are good deeds. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible, and Mishna, and Gemara. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; these are good deeds. “Afterward you shall build your house”; expound upon new understandings of Torah and receive reward, which is possible only after the initial steps.
זִקְנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר רוֹחֲצִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶן בַּמַּיִם בִּמְקוֹם עֲרִיפָה שֶׁל עֶגְלָה, וְאוֹמְרִים ״יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״. וְכִי עַל דַּעְתֵּינוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁזִּקְנֵי בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָּמִים הֵן? אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל יָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא מָזוֹן), וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ (בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה).
The Elders of that city would then wash their hands in water in the place of the breaking of the neck of the heifer, and they would recite: “Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare that the victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.
״וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ״, וְכִי עַל לִבֵּנוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁבֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכִין דָּמִים?! אֶלָּא: לֹא בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא לְוָיָה.
The verse further states: “And they shall say: Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see” (Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: But did it enter our minds that the Elders of the court are spillers of blood, that they must make such a declaration? Rather, they mean to declare: The victim did not come to us and then we let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him and then leave him alone to depart without accompaniment. They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹפִין לִלְוָיָה, שֶׁשְּׂכַר הַלְוָיָה אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּרְאוּ הַשֹּׁמְרִים אִישׁ יוֹצֵא מִן הָעִיר וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ הַרְאֵנוּ נָא אֶת מְבוֹא הָעִיר וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמְּךָ חָסֶד״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּרְאֵם אֶת מְבוֹא הָעִיר״, וּמָה חֶסֶד עָשׂוּ עִמּוֹ — שֶׁכׇּל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר הָרְגוּ לְפִי חֶרֶב, וְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ וּמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ שָׁלְחוּ.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: There is coercion with regard to accompaniment, i.e., one who does not want to accompany another is nevertheless required to do so, as the reward for accompaniment is without measure. The proof of the importance of accompaniment is from a verse, as it is stated with regard to when the Jewish people laid siege to the city of Bethel: “And the watchers saw a man come out of the city, and they said to him: Show us, please, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with you” (Judges 1:24), and it is written: “And he showed them the entrance to the city” (Judges 1:25). And what kindness did they perform with him? It is that they killed the entire city by the sword, but that man and his family they sent free.
וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּנַעֲנִי זֶה שֶׁלֹּא דִּיבֵּר בְּפִיו, וְלֹא הָלַךְ בְּרַגְלָיו — גָּרַם הַצָּלָה לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, מִי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה לְוָיָה בְּרַגְלָיו — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: And if this Canaanite, who did not speak with his mouth and explicitly tell them where the city entrance was, and did not walk with them by foot, but merely indicated the correct path to them, nevertheless caused himself to be rescued and also had the merit to provide rescue for his descendants until the end of all generations, then with regard to one who accompanies another by foot, all the more so will his reward be great.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין לוֹ לְוָיָה — יַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לִוְיַת חֵן הֵם לְרֹאשֶׁךָ וַעֲנָקִים לְגַרְגְּרֹתֶיךָ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בִּשְׁבִיל אַרְבָּעָה פְּסִיעוֹת שֶׁלִּוָּה פַּרְעֹה לְאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְצַו עָלָיו פַּרְעֹה אֲנָשִׁים וְגוֹ׳״, נִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בְּבָנָיו אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמְלַוֶּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בָּעִיר — אֵינוֹ נִיזּוֹק. רָבִינָא אַלְוְיֵהּ לְרָבָא בַּר יִצְחָק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בָּעִיר, מְטָא לִידֵיהּ הֶיזֵּיקָא וְאִיתַּצִּיל.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who walks along the way without having someone to accompany him should occupy himself with words of Torah, as it is stated with regard to words of Torah: “For they shall be a chaplet of grace to your head, and chains around your neck” (Proverbs 1:9). And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further says: Due to four steps that Pharaoh accompanied Abraham, as it is stated: “And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him, and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had” (Genesis 12:20), Pharaoh enslaved Abraham’s descendants for four hundred years, as it is stated: “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who accompanies his friend four cubits in a city will come to no harm by accompanying him. The Gemara relates: Ravina accompanied Rava bar Yitzḥak four cubits in a city. He came close to harm, but he was saved.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרַב לְתַלְמִיד — עַד עִיבּוּרָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, חָבֵר לְחָבֵר — עַד תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת, תַּלְמִיד לְרַב — אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עַד פַּרְסָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא רַבּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּבְהָק, אֲבָל רַבּוֹ מוּבְהָק — שְׁלֹשָׁה פַּרְסָאוֹת.
The Sages taught: A teacher accompanies a student until the outskirts of the city; a friend accompanies a friend until the Shabbat boundary of that city, which is two thousand cubits; and for a student who accompanies his teacher, there is no measure to the distance he accompanies him. The Gemara asks: And how far? The student is certainly not required to walk with him the entire way. Rav Sheshet says: Up to a parasang [parsa], which is four mil. The Gemara comments: And we said this amount only with regard to one who is not his most significant teacher, but he accompanies his most significant teacher, who taught him most of his knowledge, three parasangs.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלַוֶּה וּמִתְלַוֶּה — כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים, שֶׁאִילְמָלֵי לִיוּוּהוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ לֶאֱלִישָׁע לֹא גֵּירָה דּוּבִּים לַתִּינוֹקוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם בֵּית אֵל וְהוּא עֹלֶה בַדֶּרֶךְ וּנְעָרִים קְטַנִּים יָצְאוּ מִן הָעִיר וַיִּתְקַלְּסוּ בוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ״.
The Gemara continues to discuss the importance of accompaniment. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever does not accompany another or will not allow himself to be accompanied is like a spiller of blood and is held responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of his inaction. The proof for this is that had the inhabitants of Jericho accompanied Elisha, he would not have incited the bears to attack the children, as it is stated: “And he went up from there to Bethel, and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city and mocked him, and said to him: Go up, baldhead; go up, baldhead” (II Kings 2:23). Had the residents of Jericho accompanied him, they would have sent away those youths and prevented what occurred next.
וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ — בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנַיִם קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב, זָכָה וְיָצְתָה מִמֶּנּוּ רוּת שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה שְׁלֹמֹה, שֶׁכָּתוּב בֵּיהּ ״אֶלֶף עֹלוֹת יַעֲלֶה שְׁלֹמֹה״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חוֹנִי: רוּת בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל עֶגְלוֹן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל בָּלָק הָיְתָה! תַּאֲוָתוֹ מִיהָא לִקְלָלָה הֱוֵי.
But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and in performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for their own sake, as through such acts performed not for their own sake, one will come to perform them for their own sake. He proves the value of a mitzva done not for its own sake: As in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak, king of Moab, brought, he merited that Ruth descended from him, from whom King Solomon descended, about whom it is written that he brought many offerings: “A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer up” (I Kings 3:4). And Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥoni similarly says: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, son of Balak. These Sages state that Balak’s reward was to have Ruth descend from him, not that a number of Jewish people perish. The Gemara answers: His desire, in any event, was to curse the Jewish people, and his reward for sacrificing his offerings was that the curse was fulfilled in the incident involving Elisha, as well.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת, לֹא כֶּאֱלִישָׁע שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וְלֹא כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי מִתַּלְמִידָיו בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.
The Sages taught: It should always be the left, weaker, hand that pushes another away and the right, stronger, hand that draws him near. In other words, even when a student is rebuffed, he should be given the opportunity to return. This is not like Elisha, who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, away with both hands.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יֵצֶר, תִּינוֹק, וְאִשָּׁה — תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to the evil inclination, to a child, and to a woman, the left hand should reject and the right hand should welcome. If one pushes too forcefully, the damage might be irreversible.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַמְנָאֲפִים — פָּסְקוּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הִפְסִיקָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה כִּי הֵם וְגוֹ׳״.
The mishna teaches a similar occurrence: From the time when adulterers proliferated, the performance of the ritual of the bitter waters was nullified; they would not administer the bitter waters to the sota. And it was Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai who nullified it, as it is stated: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they consort with lewd women” (Hosea 4:14), meaning that when the husbands are adulterers, the wives are not punished for their own adultery.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ בַּעֲלֵי הֲנָאָה, נִתְעַוְּתוּ הַדִּינִין וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַמַּעֲשִׂים וְאֵין נוֹחַ בָּעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ רוֹאֵי פָנִים בַּדִּין, בָּטַל ״לֹא תָגוּרוּ״, וּפָסַק ״לֹא תַכִּירוּ״, וּפָרְקוּ עוֹל שָׁמַיִם וְנָתְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹל בָּשָׂר וָדָם.
§ The Gemara cites statements similar to those of the mishna. From the time when those who accept benefit from others proliferated, the laws became twisted and deeds became corrupted, and there was no comfort in the world. From the time when those who look at the faces of the litigants in judgment, in order to rule based on the appearance of the litigants, proliferated, the fulfillment of the verse: “You shall not fear the face of any man” (Deuteronomy 1:17), ceased, and the fulfillment of the verse: “You shall not respect faces in judgment” (Deuteronomy 1:17), halted, and they removed the yoke of Heaven from themselves, and placed upon themselves the yoke of flesh and blood.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ לוֹחֲשֵׁי לְחִישׁוֹת בַּדִּין — רָבָה חֲרוֹן אַף בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁכִינָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״אַחֲרֵי בִצְעָם לִבָּם הֹלֵךְ״ — רַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״ — רַבּוּ ״הוֹי הוֹי״ בָּעוֹלָם.
From the time when those who whisper whisperings in judgment, advising judges surreptitiously, proliferated, fierce anger proliferated in Israel, and the Divine Presence departed, because it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1). The Divine Presence that dwells among judges leaves if they judge improperly. From the time when those who are referred to in the verse: “Their heart goes after their covetousness” (Ezekiel 33:31), proliferated, “Those who say to evil good, and to good evil” (Isaiah 5:20) proliferated, i.e., those who treat wicked people as though they were righteous proliferated as a result. From the time when the fulfillment of the verse: “Those who say to evil good, and to good evil,” proliferated, the cry of: Woe, woe, proliferated in the world. There was an increase in troubles that cause people to cry out.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מוֹשְׁכֵי הָרוֹק — רַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים, וְהַתּוֹרָה חוֹזֶרֶת עַל לוֹמְדֶיהָ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים — הִתְחִילוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִיהִירִים, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרֵינוּ רוֹאֶה אֶלָּא לַפָּנִים.
From the time when those who show their arrogance by drawing out spittle proliferated, the number of haughty people in general proliferated, and the number of students decreased, as they would say haughtily that there was nothing left for them to learn, and the Torah needs to go around to seek those who study it, as people do not learn of their own initiative. Furthermore, from the time when haughty people proliferated, the daughters of Israel began marrying haughty men, as our generation looks only at the face, i.e., the external aspects of a person, and ignores the inner aspects of a person.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר מָר: הַאי מַאן דְּמִיַּהַר — אֲפִילּוּ אַאִינָשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ לָא מִיקַּבַּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״, לֹא יִנְוֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּנָּוֶה שֶׁלּוֹ! מֵעִיקָּרָא קָפְצָה עֲלֵיהּ, לְסוֹף מִיתְּזִיל עֲלַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Do women wish to marry arrogant men? But didn’t the Master say: One who is haughty is not even accepted by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5)? “Abides [yinaveh] not” means that even in his abode [naveh], he is not accepted. The Gemara explains: Initially, she jumps at the chance to marry him, because he appears to be a great person to her, but in the end, once she gets to know him, he is demeaned in her eyes.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מַטִּילֵי מְלַאי עַל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים — רָבָה הַשּׁוֹחַד וְהַטָּיַית מִשְׁפָּט, וּפָסְקָה טוֹבָה. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״מְקַבְּלֵנִי טוֹבָתְךָ״ וּ״מְחַזְּקֵנִי טוֹבוֹתֶיךָ״ — רַבּוּ ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״. שְׁפָלִים הוּגְבְּהוּ, וְהַגְּבוֹהִים הוּשְׁפְּלוּ, וּמַלְכוּתָא אָזְלָא וְנָוְלָא. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ צָרֵי עַיִן וְטוֹרְפֵי טֶרֶף — רַבּוּ מְאַמְּצֵי הַלֵּב וְקוֹפְצֵי יָדַיִם מִלְּהַלְווֹת, וְעָבְרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן וְגוֹ׳״.
The baraita continues: From the time when there was an increase in those who placed upon homeowners the obligation to designate the profits from merchandise for the upkeep of judges, bribery and corruption of judgment proliferated and good ceased. From the time when those judges and leaders who say: I accept your favor, and: I hold your favor, proliferated, the fulfillment of the verse: “Every man did that which was right in his eyes” (Judges 17:6), proliferated. Lowly ones were raised and lofty ones were lowered, and the monarchy is increasingly on the decline. From the time when misers and those greedy for profit proliferated, those hardened of heart and who closed their hands from lending proliferated, and they transgressed that which is written in the Torah: “You shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your needy brother…Guard yourself in case there is a base thought in your heart…and you do not give him” (Deuteronomy 15:7, 9).
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם״ — רַבּוּ מַיִם הַמָּרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁפָּסְקוּ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת — נִתְמַעֲטוּ הַיָּמִים וְנִתְקַצְּרוּ הַשָּׁנִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשׂוֹנֵא מַתָּנֹת יִחְיֶה״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ זְחוּחֵי הַלֵּב — רַבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִילֵּל שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימְּשׁוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן — רַבּוּ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנַעֲשֵׂית תּוֹרָה כִּשְׁתֵּי תוֹרוֹת. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי צְדָקָה מִן הַנׇּכְרִי — הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְהֵם לְמַטָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנִים וְהֵם לְאָחוֹר.
From the time when women with “stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes” (Isaiah 3:16) proliferated, the bitter waters of a sota proliferated, as more people were suspected of committing adultery; but they eventually ceased when licentiousness became too widespread. From the time when those who accept gifts proliferated, the days decreased and the years shortened, as it is written: “And he who hates gifts lives” (Proverbs 15:27). From the time when those with boastful [zeḥuḥei] hearts proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel. From the time when the students of Shammai and Hillel who did not serve their Rabbis sufficiently proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel, and the Torah became like two Torahs. From the time when those who accept charity from gentiles proliferated, the Jewish people were above and they below; the Jewish people ahead and they behind. This last statement is a euphemism; it was the Jewish people that were below and behind, but the Gemara did not want to say so explicitly.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בַּר יְבֶרֶכְיָה: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה — רְאוּיִן לִישָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵמָּה הֹלְכִים הָלוֹךְ וְדַבֵּר וְהִנֵּה רֶכֶב אֵשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא דִּיבּוּר, הָא לֵיכָּא דִּיבּוּר — רְאוּיִן לִישָּׂרֵף.
And Rabbi Ile’a bar Yeverekhya says: In the case of two Torah scholars who are walking along the way and there are no words of Torah between them, but they are conversing about other matters, they are deserving of being burned in fire. As it is stated with regard to Elijah and his disciple Elisha: “And it was as they walked along, talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder” (II Kings 2:11). The reason they were not burned by the chariot of fire is that there was speech exchanged between them, which presumably was words of Torah, but if there had been no speech, they would have been deserving of being burned by the chariot.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בַּר יְבֶרֶכְיָה: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת וְאֵין נוֹחִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּהֲלָכָה — אֶחָד מֵת וְאֶחָד גּוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָנֻס שָׁמָּה רוֹצֵחַ אֲשֶׁר יִרְצַח אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי דַעַת״, וְאֵין דַּעַת אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִדְמוּ עַמִּי מִבְּלִי הַדָּעַת״.
And Rabbi Ile’a bar Yeverekhya says: If there are two Torah scholars who reside in the same city and they are not pleasant to each other with regard to halakha, but are constantly fighting, one of them will die and the other one will be exiled. As it is stated: “That the manslayer might flee there, who slays his neighbor without knowledge” (Deuteronomy 4:42), and “knowledge” means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה מִתּוֹךְ הַדְּחָק — תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִשְׁמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַם בְּצִיּוֹן יֵשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם בָּכוֹ לֹא תִבְכֶּה חָנוֹן יׇחְנְךָ לְקוֹל זַעֲקֶךָ כְּשׇׁמְעָתוֹ עָנָךְ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְנָתַן ה׳ לָכֶם לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ״.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: With regard to any Torah scholar who engages in Torah study while experiencing the pressure of poverty, his prayer is listened to, as it is stated: “For, O people that dwells in Zion at Jerusalem, you shall weep no more; He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry. When He shall hear, He will answer you” (Isaiah 30:19), and after it is written: “And the Lord shall give you sparse bread and scant water” (Isaiah 30:20). This verse indicates that those who sit and study Torah, that is, the people who dwell in Zion, and eat bread sparingly, will have their prayers answered by God.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִזִּיו שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״. רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אַף אֵין הַפַּרְגּוֹד נִנְעָל בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִכָּנֵף עוֹד מוֹרֶיךָ״.
Rabbi Abbahu says: A Torah scholar who engages in Torah study despite economic pressures is satiated with the glory of the Divine Presence, as it is stated in the same verse, above: “And your eyes shall behold your Teacher.” Rabbi Aḥa, son of Ḥanina, said: Even the concealing partition [pargod] before the Divine Presence is not locked before him, as it is stated: “And your Teacher shall not hide Himself anymore” (Isaiah 30:20).
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּילֶגֶשׁ בַּגִּבְעָה הֵטִיל עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲלָהּ אֵימָה יְתֵירָה, וְהִפִּילָה כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20).
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, סוֹף הוּא בָּא לִידֵי שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת: גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְחִילּוּל שַׁבָּת.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם גָּדוֹל הֵטִיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהֶאֱכִילוּהוּ דָּבָר גָּדוֹל.
Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as a great man imposed excessive fear upon his household and they fed him something that carried a great prohibition.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ מָר עוּקְבָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּנֵי אָדָם הָעוֹמְדִים עָלַי, וּבְיָדִי לְמׇסְרָם לַמַּלְכוּת, מַהוּ?
§ After mentioning letters sent from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and the issue of scoring parchment, the Gemara relates: Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, sent a letter to Rabbi Elazar, who was in Eretz Yisrael, in which the following was written: With regard to people who stand over and torment me, and I have the power to deliver them into the hands of the government, what is the halakha? May I hand them over to the authorities or not?
שַׂרְטֵט וּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״אָמַרְתִּי אֶשְׁמְרָה דְרָכַי מֵחֲטוֹא בִלְשׁוֹנִי אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם בְּעוֹד רָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי, אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם.
Rabbi Elazar scored parchment and wrote to him the following verse: “I said: I will take heed to my ways, that I do not sin with my tongue; I will keep a curb upon my mouth, while the wicked is before me” (Psalms 39:2). Rabbi Elazar quoted this verse to allude to the following response: Even though “the wicked is before me,” “I will keep a curb upon my mouth.”
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: קָא מְצַעֲרִי לִי טוּבָא, וְלָא מָצֵינָא דְּאֵיקוּם בְּהוּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: ״דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהִתְחוֹלֵל לוֹ״ – דּוֹם לַה׳, וְהוּא יַפִּילֵם לְךָ חֲלָלִים חֲלָלִים; הַשְׁכֵּם וְהַעֲרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְהֵן כָּלִין מֵאֵילֵיהֶן. הַדָּבָר יָצָא מִפִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וּנְתָנוּהוּ לִגְנִיבָא בְּקוֹלָר.
Mar Ukva sent word to him again: They are tormenting me a great deal and I cannot stand them. Rabbi Elazar sent to him in response: “Resign yourself to the Lord, and wait patiently [hitḥolel] for Him; do not fret yourself because of he who prospers in his way, because of the man who brings wicked devices to pass” (Psalms 37:7). This verse indicates: “Resign yourself to the Lord,” i.e., do not do anything, and He will strike them down as many corpses [ḥalalim]. Rise before and stay later than them in your visits to the study hall, and they will disappear on their own. The Gemara relates: The matter emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Elazar, and Geneiva, Mar Ukva’s tormentor, was placed in a neck iron [kolar], as one sentenced by the government.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא דְּמָתְווֹתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָא חָשֵׁיב?! אֶלָּא רַב גְּבִיהָא מֵאָרַגִּיזָא אָמַר בָּהּ טַעְמָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִנְאָה עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְדוֹמֵם, שׁוֹכֵן עֲדֵי עַד עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ דִּין.
Rav Huna said to him: Is that to say that you think I don’t know that the verse is listing the cities of Eretz Yisrael? This is certainly the straightforward meaning of the verse. Rather, Rav Geviha from Argiza said an explanation of this verse, suggesting that it is an allusion to the following idea: Anyone who harbors jealousy [kina] toward another, and yet remains silent [domem], He who dwells for all eternity [adei ad] performs judgment on his behalf.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״צִקְלָג וּמַדְמֵנָה וְסַנְסַנָּהּ״ הָכִי נָמֵי?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הֲוָה רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי אָרַגִּיזָא הָכָא, הֲוָה אָמַר בָּהּ טַעְמָא. רַב אַחָא מִבֵּי חוֹזָאָה אָמַר בַּהּ הָכִי: כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צַעֲקַת לְגִימָא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְדוֹמֵם, שׁוֹכֵן בַּסְּנֶה עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ דִּין.
Rav Ashi said to him: If that is so, you should also expound the verse: “Ziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah” (Joshua 15:31), in a similar manner. Rav Huna said to him: If Rav Geviha from Bei Argiza was here, he would say an explanation for it. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa from Bei Ḥoza’a said this about that verse: Anyone who has a complaint against another over a sip [tza’akat legima], i.e., he has a claim that someone did not give him food, and remains silent [domem], the One who dwells in the burning bush [seneh] performs judgment on his behalf.
דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, זִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי, וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי – מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אִם שְׁלֵמִים וְכֵן רַבִּים וְכֵן נָגוֹזּוּ וְעָבָר וְגוֹ׳״? אִם רוֹאֶה אָדָם שֶׁמְּזוֹנוֹתָיו מְצוּמְצָמִין – יַעֲשֶׂה מֵהֶן צְדָקָה. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן כְּשֶׁהֵן מְרוּבִּין.
The Gemara cites another statement by the same Sages. Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically. Sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Ami, and sometimes he would say it in the name of Rav Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord: Though they be in full strength [shelemim], and likewise many, even so shall they be cut down, and he shall pass away; and though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more” (Nahum 1:12). This means: If a person sees that his sustenance is limited he should use it for charity, and all the more so when it is plentiful. In other words, if his livelihood has finished [nishlam] he should perform charity, and he should certainly act in this manner if his means are plentiful.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, אֲבָל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה – יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה. כִּי הָהוּא מַקְרֵי דַּרְדְּקֵי דְּאַדְּרֵיהּ רַב אַחָא עַל דַּעַת רַבִּים, דַּהֲוָה פָּשַׁע בְּיָנוֹקֵי; וְאַהְדְּרֵיהּ רָבִינָא, דְּלָא אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּדָיֵיק כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ, וּלְשׁוּם עֶבֶד – יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לְרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן, לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין – לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד לֹא לְרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא לְרַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי; לְרַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי לָא, דְּהָא לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין פַּרְקֵיהּ, לְרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי לָא, דִּילְמָא מִמַּנְעִי וְלָא פָּרְקִי.
Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the slave was redeemed before the despairing of the owner. Therefore, according to the unattributed opinion of the mishna, if he was redeemed to be a slave, he will be a slave to his first master. If he was redeemed to be a freeman, he will not be a slave, neither to his first master nor to his second master, i.e., the one who redeemed him. He will not be a slave to his second master because he redeemed him as a freeman and cannot now demand that he become a slave. He will also not be a slave to his first master lest people refrain from redeeming slaves. If they know that a redeemed slave remains a slave of his original owner, they will not see any reason to redeem them from captivity.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים, תְּפִילִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן,
MISHNA: And Torah scrolls, phylacteries, or mezuzot are not purchased from the gentiles when they acquire these objects, if they request more than their actual monetary value,
מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.
for the betterment of the world, so as not to cause an increase in the theft of sacred Jewish ritual objects in order to sell them for large sums of money.
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ הַנִּיזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִּית? מִפְּנֵי הַגַּזְלָנִים וּמִפְּנֵי הַחַמְסָנִין, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאמַר אָדָם: לָמָה אֲנִי גּוֹזֵל וְלָמָה אֲנִי חוֹמֵס? לְמָחָר בֵּית דִּין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסַי וְנוֹטְלִין שָׂדֶה נָאָה שֶׁלִּי, וְסוֹמְכִים עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״; לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ: הַנִּיזָּקִין – שָׁמִין לָהֶן בְּעִידִּית.
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:2) that Rabbi Shimon said: For what reason did the Sages say that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties? It is due to the robbers and due to those who take that which is not theirs by force [ḥamsanin]. How so? So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. And the Sages rely on what is written in the Torah: “Of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” (Exodus 22:4). Consequently, they said that the court appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured parties.
מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בַּעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶה אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ שָׂדֶה נָאָה וְדִירָה נָאָה, וְיֹאמַר: אֶקְפּוֹץ וְאַלְוֶנּוּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶגְבֶּנּוּ בְּחוֹבִי; לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ: בַּעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית.
The baraita continues: For what reason did the Sages say that a creditor collects his debt from intermediate-quality land? It is so that a person should not see another’s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump in and lend him money so that later I will collect the field or house for my debt, if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. Therefore, the Sages said that a creditor collects his debt only from intermediate-quality land, and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְהֵא בְּזִיבּוּרִית! אִם כֵּן – אַתָּה נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין.
The Gemara asks: If it is so that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrower’s property should he default on the loan, then the halakha governing a creditor should be to collect his debt from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: If so, then you would be locking the door before potential borrowers, as no one would be willing to lend them money.
הָנְהוּ בֵּי תְרֵי דְּאִיגָּרִי בְּהוּ שָׂטָן, דְּכֹל בֵּי שִׁמְשֵׁי הֲווֹ קָא מִינְּצוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אִיקְּלַע רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְהָתָם, עַכְּבִינְהוּ תְּלָתָא בֵּי שִׁמְשֵׁי, עַד דַּעֲבַד לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא. שַׁמְעֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר: וַוי, דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא מִבֵּיתֵיהּ.
Apropos an incident involving Rabbi Meir, the Gemara relates another story about him: There were two people who, incited by Satan, would argue with each other every Friday afternoon at twilight. Rabbi Meir happened to come to the place where they argued. He stopped them from fighting three Friday afternoons at twilight, until finally he made peace between them. He then heard Satan say: Woe, that Rabbi Meir removed that man, Satan, from his house. This indicates that Satan himself lives among those who have discord.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara.
בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
The Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. They established a fixed order for the irrigation of fields, so that people would not quarrel over who is given precedence.
מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
Animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps are not acquired by the one who set the traps until he actually takes possession of them. Nevertheless, if another person comes and takes them, it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
Similarly, a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
If a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאקַדֵּישׁ בְּשׁוּטִיתָא דְאָסָא בְּשׁוּקָא, שַׁלְחַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מַאי? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: נַגְּדֵיהּ כְּרַב, וְאַצְרֵיךְ גִּיטָּא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who betrothed a woman with a myrtle branch in the marketplace. Rav Aḥa bar Huna sent this dilemma before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef sent a response to him: Flog him, in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and require her to receive a bill of divorce, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, in case the myrtle branch is worth one peruta somewhere else.
דְּרַב מְנַגֵּיד עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה, וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי.
The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.
וְעַל דִּמְבַטֵּיל גִּיטָּא, וְעַל דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא, וְעַל דִּמְצַעַר שְׁלוּחָא דְרַבָּנַן, וְעַל דְּחָלָה שַׁמְתָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין,
And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.
וְעַל חַתְנָא דְּדָיַיר בֵּי חֲמוּהּ. דְּדָיַיר – אִין, חָלֵיף – לָא?! וְהָא הָהוּא חַתְנָא דַּחֲלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי חֲמוּהּ וְנַגְּדֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת! הָהוּא מֵידָם הֲוָת דָּיְימָא חֲמָתֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged. But there was a certain son-in-law who passed by the entrance of his father-in-law’s house and Rav Sheshet flogged him due to licentiousness. The Gemara explains: In that case, there were suspicions [dayma] about him and his mother-in-law, i.e., about rumors of intimacy between them. In walking by the house he contributed to these rumors, which is why he was flogged.
נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בְּכוּלְּהוּ, לָא מְנַגֵּיד רַב אֶלָּא עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשִׁידּוּכֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם פְּרִיצוּתָא.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.
הָהוּא שַׁמּוֹתֵי מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: הַקּוֹרֵא לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״עֶבֶד״ – יְהֵא בְּנִידּוּי. ״מַמְזֵר״ – סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. ״רָשָׁע״ – יוֹרֵד עִמּוֹ לְחַיָּיו!
The Gemara asks: But the court ostracizes one who says this to another, as it is taught in a baraita: One who calls another a slave shall be ostracized. One who calls another a mamzer incurs the punishment of forty lashes. If one calls another a wicked person then the insulted person may harass him in all aspects of his life. In light of this halakha, it is clear that the court will not force the accused to respond to this insult by taking an oath.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי דַּעֲדִיפְנָא מֵחַבְרַאי, דִּנְסֵיבְנָא בְּשִׁיתְּסַר, וְאִי הֲוָה נָסֵיבְנָא בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר
Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen,
הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְשָׂטָן: גִּירָא בְּעֵינָיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אַמֵּי: אַדִּידָךְ עַל צַוְּארֵי דִּבְרָיךְ. מִשִּׁיתְּסַר וְעַד עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: מִתַּמְנֵי סְרֵי עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה.
I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four.
הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְשָׂטָן: גִּירָא בְּעֵינָיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אַמֵּי: אַדִּידָךְ עַל צַוְּארֵי דִּבְרָיךְ. מִשִּׁיתְּסַר וְעַד עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: מִתַּמְנֵי סְרֵי עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה.
I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה – כָּךְ, מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גָּדוֹל מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה.
And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if this is related about one who is not commanded by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, and nevertheless when he performs the mitzva he is given this great reward, all the more so is one rewarded who is commanded to fulfill a mitzva and performs it. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it.
According to R. Hanina, a person who fulfills a commandment even out of obligation is greater than one who fulfills it not out of obligation. This, I think, is somewhat counterintuitive. Most of us think that when we do something because we want to, we are in some way better than those who fulfill it because they have to. That is, I think, R. Hanina’s point. Fulfilling commandments out of a sense of obligation shows a commitment not just to the particular deed, but to its source.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אֲבוּהּ לְאַבָּיֵי: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא, דְּעַד דְּאָתֵינָא מִבֵּי רַב אַבָּא מְדַלֵּי לִי כָּסָא וְאִמָּא מָזְגָה לִי, הֵיכִי אֶיעֱבֵיד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵאִמָּךְ קַבֵּיל, וּמֵאֲבוּךְ לָא תְּקַבֵּל דְּכֵיוָן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הוּא חָלְשָׁה דַּעְתֵּיהּ.
Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect.
R. Ya’akov b. Abahu’s parents honor him by pouring him wine even before he comes home. But can he accept such an honor? Abaye says that he may accept it from his mother, but not his father, for his father is also a Torah scholar. We can sense here the tension between the honor due a person because he is a scholar, and the honor due a person as a parent. R. Ya’akov is a scholar, and thus his parents honor him. But they are his parents, and he should honor them. The solution is that he may indeed accept this honor from them, but only if it does not at the same time dishonor his father as a scholar.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ מוֹרָא וְאֵיזֶהוּ כִּיבּוּד? מוֹרָא – לֹא עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְלֹא סוֹתֵר אֶת דְּבָרָיו, וְלֹא מַכְרִיעוֹ. כִּיבּוּד – מַאֲכִיל וּמַשְׁקֶה, מַלְבִּישׁ וּמְכַסֶּה, מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא.
The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs.
This baraita outlines the difference between fearing and honoring one’s parents. I think that what the baraita defines as “fear” we would call “honor.” Tipping the scales refers to expressing an opinion that differs with one’s father. [I should note that there are plenty of cases in the Talmud where a rabbi does disagree with his father].
Honoring is essentially helping a parent materially—making sure they have food, drink, clothing and someone to help them when its hard for them to walk.
Honoring is essentially helping a parent materially—making sure they have food, drink, clothing and someone to help them when its hard for them to walk.
אֵין תַּלְמִיד חָכָם רַשַּׁאי לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי רַבּוֹ אֶלָּא שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה כְּבוֹדוֹ מְרוּבֶּה מִכְּבוֹד שָׁמַיִם. מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְזָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא יַטְרִיחַ – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ״.
A Torah scholar is permitted to stand before his teacher only once in the morning and once in the evening, so that the teacher’s honor should not be greater than the honor of Heaven, as one recites the Shema, which is tantamount to greeting God, once in the morning and once in the evening. The Gemara raises an objection from an aforementioned opinion. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “An elder, and you shall fear” (Leviticus 19:32). The collocation of these words comes to teach that the elder, too, must fear God.
Jews recite the Shema in praise of God twice a day. A Torah scholar should not rise before his teacher more than twice a day so that the teacher’s honor not supersede that of God. I think we can sense here that rabbis were accorded a high level of honor, and that there was a fear that this honor would exceed proper boundaries and perhaps the students would revere their teacher’s more than God. It is this mentality that R. Yannai is trying to curb.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וּמַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְנוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת – אֵין מְטִיבִין לוֹ, וְאֵין מַאֲרִיכִין לוֹ יָמָיו, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹחֵל אֶת הָאָרֶץ.
MISHNA: Anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land, i.e., life in the World-to-Come. And anyone who does not perform one mitzva does not have goodness bestowed upon him, his life is not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land of the World-to-Come.
The peculiar language of the mishnah “he who does not perform one commandment” is a euphemism for “he who commits one transgression.”
“Days are prolonged” is understood to refer to a long life in this world and “inherit the land” is typically understood to refer to a reward in the world to come.
“Days are prolonged” is understood to refer to a long life in this world and “inherit the land” is typically understood to refer to a reward in the world to come.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְהַכְנָסַת אוֹרְחִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.
GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality toward guests, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. This indicates that one is rewarded in this world only for fulfilling these mitzvot, but not for fulfilling all mitzvot.
This well-known baraita states that one receives a reward in this world only for particular mitzvoth, not for every mitzvah, as our mishnah seems to teach.
וְדִלְמָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה? רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב מַעֲשֶׂה חֲזָא. וְדִלְמָא מְהַרְהֵר בַּעֲבֵירָה הֲוָה? מַחְשָׁבָה רָעָה אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps this incident never occurred? It is possible that everyone who performs these mitzvot is rewarded in this world, and the situation described by Rabbi Ya’akov never happened. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov himself saw an incident of this kind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps that man was contemplating sin at the time, and he was punished for his thoughts? The Gemara answers that there is a principle that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: תְּנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן וְאוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵלּוּ הֵן: כִּיבּוּד אָב וְאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם.
§ Rava raises a contradiction to Rav Naḥman and asks: We learned in a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them.
אָמַר רָבָא: רַב אִידִי אַסְבְּרַאּ לִי: ״אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם יֹאכֵלוּ״ – וְכִי יֵשׁ צַדִּיק טוֹב וְיֵשׁ צַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹב? אֶלָּא: טוֹב לַשָּׁמַיִם וְלַבְּרִיּוֹת – זֶהוּ צַדִּיק טוֹב, טוֹב לַשָּׁמַיִם וְרַע לַבְּרִיּוֹת – זֶהוּ צַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹב.
Rather, Rava said: Rav Idi explained the matter to me. The verse states: “Say you of the righteous who is good, that they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10). And this verse is difficult, as is there a righteous person who is good and is there a righteous person who is not good? Rather, this verse should be understood as follows: One who is good both toward Heaven and toward people is a good righteous person; one who is good toward Heaven but bad toward people is a righteous person who is not good.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹי לְרָשָׁע רָע כִּי גְמוּל יָדָיו יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ״. וְכִי יֵשׁ רָשָׁע רַע וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַע? אֶלָּא: רַע לַשָּׁמַיִם וְרַע לַבְּרִיּוֹת – הוּא רָשָׁע רַע, רַע לַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵינוֹ רַע לַבְּרִיּוֹת – זֶהוּ רָשָׁע שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַע.
Rava continues: On a similar note, it is written: “Woe to the evil wicked one, for the work of his hands shall be done to him” (Isaiah 3:11). And is there a wicked man who is evil and is there one who is not evil? Rather, one who is evil toward Heaven and evil toward people is an evil wicked person; and one who is evil toward Heaven and not evil toward people is a wicked person who is not evil. With regard to the issue at hand, only one who performs mitzvot that benefit others receives the profits of his mitzvot in this world. This does not apply to dispatching the mother bird, which is an act that does not benefit other people.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בַּמִּקְרָא וּבַמִּשְׁנָה וּבְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ – לֹא בִּמְהֵרָה הוּא חוֹטֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַחוּט הַמְשֻׁלָּשׁ לֹא בִמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק״. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא בַּמִּקְרָא וְלֹא בַּמִּשְׁנָה וְלֹא בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ – אֵינוֹ מִן הַיִּישּׁוּב.
MISHNA: Anyone who is engaged in the study of Bible, and in the study of Mishna, and in the desired mode of behavior, i.e., he performs labor and generally acts in an appropriate manner, will not be quick to sin, as it is stated: “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). One who is involved in all three of these activities will not sin easily. And anyone who does not engage in the study of Bible, nor the study of Mishna, nor the desired mode of behavior, is not part of society, i.e., he is not considered a civilized person at all.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בַּמִּקְרָא וּבַמִּשְׁנָה וּבְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ – לֹא בִּמְהֵרָה הוּא חוֹטֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַחוּט הַמְשֻׁלָּשׁ לֹא בִמְהֵרָה יִנָּתֵק״. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא בַּמִּקְרָא וְלֹא בַּמִּשְׁנָה וְלֹא בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ – אֵינוֹ מִן הַיִּישּׁוּב.
MISHNA: Anyone who is engaged in the study of Bible, and in the study of Mishna, and in the desired mode of behavior, i.e., he performs labor and generally acts in an appropriate manner, will not be quick to sin, as it is stated: “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). One who is involved in all three of these activities will not sin easily. And anyone who does not engage in the study of Bible, nor the study of Mishna, nor the desired mode of behavior, is not part of society, i.e., he is not considered a civilized person at all.
To be a part of civilized Jewish society one must be both learned and take part in worldly activities, namely work. Occupation with the study of both written and oral Torah, accompanied by a livelihood provides a person with a culture which will prevent him from sinning. One who is not engaged in all three is not considered to be civilized. In another words, in the eyes of the rabbis, such a person is a barbarian.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שֵׁם בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם אוֹתִיּוֹת אֵין מוֹסְרִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁצָּנוּעַ וְעָנָיו, וְעוֹמֵד בַּחֲצִי יָמָיו, וְאֵינוֹ כּוֹעֵס, וְאֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּכֵּר, וְאֵינוֹ מַעֲמִיד עַל מִדּוֹתָיו. וְכׇל הַיּוֹדְעוֹ, וְהַזָּהִיר בּוֹ וְהַמְשַׁמְּרוֹ בְּטׇהֳרָה – אָהוּב לְמַעְלָה, וְנֶחְמָד לְמַטָּה, וְאֵימָתוֹ מוּטֶּלֶת עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְנוֹחֵל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים – הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The forty-two-letter name of God may be transmitted only to one who is discreet, and humble, and stands at at least half his life, and does not get angry, and does not get drunk, and does not insist upon his rights but is willing to yield. There is no concern that such a person might reveal the name in a fit of anger or drunkenness. And anyone who knows this name and is careful with it and guards it in purity is beloved above and treasured below; and fear of him is cast upon the creatures; and he inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל בָּתַר שְׁתִיקוּתָא, כִּי הַאי דְּבָדְקִי בְּנֵי מַעְרְבָא: כִּי מִינְּצוּ בֵּי תְרֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי חָזוּ הֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ דְּקָדֵים וְשָׁתֵיק – אָמְרִי: הַאי מְיוּחָס טְפֵי.
Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: If so, what shall we do? How can we clarify which families are of unflawed lineage? Ulla said to him: Go after the silence, like the way the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, examine: When two people quarrel with each other, they observe which of them becomes silent first. Then they say: This silent party is of finer lineage.
אָמַר רַב: שְׁתִיקוּתֵיהּ דְּבָבֶל – הַיְינוּ יִחוּסָא. אִינִי? וְהָא אִיקְּלַע רַב לְבֵי בַּר שָׁפֵי חַלָּא וּבְדַק בְּהוּ, מַאי לָאו בְּיַחֲסוּתָא? לָא, בִּשְׁתִיקוּתָא. הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: בְּדוּקוּ אִי שָׁתְקִי אִי לָא שָׁתְקִי.
Rav says: The silence of Babylonia is its lineage. In other words, this is an effective method of examining a person’s lineage in Babylonia as well. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav arrived at the house of the son of a vinegar strainer and examined them. What, is it not that he conducted an examination into their lineage? The Gemara answers: No, he conducted an examination into their silence. This is what Rav said to those conducting the examination: Examine whether they become silent when they quarrel or whether they do not become silent.
Ulla gives him a simple test—those who are less quarrelsome, they are of superior lineage.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אִם רָאִיתָ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁמִּתְגָּרִים זֶה בָּזֶה – שֶׁמֶץ פְּסוּל יֵשׁ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לִידַּבֵּק אֶחָד בַּחֲבֵירוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אִם רָאִיתָ שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת הַמִּתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ – שֶׁמֶץ פְּסוּל יֵשׁ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, וְאֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ לִידַּבֵּק בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If you see two people feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them. In other words, there are grounds to suspect that the lineage of one of them is flawed. Consequently, that one is prevented by Heaven from joining the other through marriage, and that leads them to feud with each other. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If you see two families feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them, and that family is prevented by Heaven from joining the other.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּהִידּוּר מִצְוָה – עַד שְׁלִישׁ בְּמִצְוָה.
Rather, what Rabbi Zeira said is that for the embellishment of the performance of a mitzva, e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend up to one-third more than the cost of the standard item used to perform the mitzva.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ – הִכְשַׁרְתִּי אֶת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ – חַבְתִּי בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כׇּל נִזְקוֹ.
MISHNA: With regard to anything for which I became responsible for safeguarding it to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if I actively facilitated that damage, and accordingly I must pay for it. In any case in which I facilitated part of the damage it caused, I am liable for payments of restitution for damage it caused, as if I were the one who facilitated the entire damage it caused.
כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.
When an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard causes damage, the one liable for the damage caused by insufficiently safeguarding it is obligated to pay payments of restitution for damage with his best-quality land.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַשְׁרֵיכֶם זֹרְעֵי עַל כׇּל מָיִם, מְשַׁלְּחֵי רֶגֶל הַשּׁוֹר וְהַחֲמוֹר״? כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, זוֹכֶה לְנַחֲלַת שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים.
§ A verse that was cited at the beginning of the this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy are you that sow beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20)? It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes, Joseph and Issachar.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵיכֶם זֹרְעֵי״ – וְאֵין ״זְרִיעָה״ אֶלָּא צְדָקָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִרְעוּ לָכֶם לִצְדָקָה וְקִצְרוּ לְפִי חֶסֶד״; וְאֵין ״מַיִם״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי כׇּל צָמֵא לְכוּ לַמַּיִם״.
The Gemara explains how this is derived from the verse: As it is stated: “Happy are you that sow.” And the reference to sowing refers only to acts of charity, as it is stated: “Sow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindness” (Hosea 10:12). And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah, as it is stated with regard to Torah study: “Ho, all who are thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1).
אָמַר רַב סְחוֹרָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ – אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַעֲלוֹת לוֹ שָׂכָר, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁאִיָּה יוּכַּת שַׁעַר״. אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ, וּמְנַגַּח כִּי תוֹרָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בֵּיתָא מְיַתְּבָא – יָתֵיב.
Rav Seḥora says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: “Desolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin” (Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect. Consequently, one who lives inside an otherwise uninhabited house is providing a service to the homeowner, as he maintains the house and prevents it from falling apart. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I saw this ruin and it gores like an ox, i.e., it is devastating. Rav Yosef stated a similar idea: A home that is lived in is settled and safeguarded, while a home that is not lived in has no one to look after it and maintain it.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמֶהֱוֵי חֲסִידָא – לְקַיֵּים מִילֵּי דִּנְזִיקִין. רָבָא אָמַר: מִילֵּי דְאָבוֹת. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: מִילֵּי דִּבְרָכוֹת.
Rav Yehuda says: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Nezikin, so as to avoid causing damage to others. Rava said he should observe the matters of tractate Avot. And some say he should observe the matters of tractate Berakhot.
אָמְרִי: אֵין מְקַבְּלִים עֲלֵיהֶן שָׂכָר כִּמְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה, אֶלָּא כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גָּדוֹל הַמְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה יוֹתֵר מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה.
The Sages said in response: Rav Yosef meant that they do not receive the reward as does one who is commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it, but as does one who is not commanded to perform a mitzva and performs it anyway. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who is commanded and performs a mitzva is greater than one who is not commanded and performs it.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כׇּל בְּרִיָּה, אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכַר שִׂיחָה נָאָה.
§ Having mentioned the Moabites and Ammonites, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deprive any creature of its reward. He rewards every person for his good deeds, and provides reward even for using pleasant speech by using euphemisms.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקְּדָמַתָּה בְּכִירָה לִצְעִירָה – קְדָמַתָּה אַרְבַּע דּוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: עוֹבֵד, יִשַׁי, וְדָוִד, וּשְׁלֹמֹה; וְאִילּוּ צְעִירָה – עַד רְחַבְעָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ נַעֲמָה הָעַמֹּנִית״.
And with regard to the daughters of Lot, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person should always hasten to perform a mitzva, as due to the one night by which the elder daughter of Lot preceded the younger daughter, with the intention of performing a mitzva by bringing children into the world, she preceded her by four generations in having her descendants enter into the Jewish people. They are: Obed, son of Ruth the Moabite, Yishai, David, and Solomon. Whereas, the descendants of the younger daughter did not join the Jewish people until Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, was born, as it is written: “And his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite” (I Kings 14:31).
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – כִּדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְאַל יַעֲמִיד סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ״.
Rather, Abaye rejected Rabba’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, and said that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and that one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? As it is stated: “You shall not bring blood into your house” (Deuteronomy 22:8), which means that one may not allow a hazardous situation to remain in his house. Similarly, a person should not keep a forewarned ox in his possession, as it is dangerous. This is why Rabbi Eliezer rules that no level of safeguarding is sufficient for it; the ox should be slaughtered so that it will not cause damage.
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ – נַעֲבֵיד עֲשָׂרָה! אֶלָּא כְּרַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ – בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.
Rav Naḥman answered him: And according to your reasoning, let us make the structure a minimal ten handbreadths. Why must it have a height of two people? Rather, no proof can be brought from here, since the reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, the structure used for stoning is constructed sufficiently high that he dies quickly, without any unnecessary suffering.
אִי הָכִי, נַגְבַּהּ טְפֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּמִינַּוַּול.
The Gemara asks: If so, let us raise the structure even more, so that his death will be even less painful. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if he fell from a greater height, his organs would be crushed and he would become completely disfigured, which is certainly not a way one would prefer to die.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיסְטִים מְזוּיָּין – גַּזְלָן הוּא!
Abaye said to him: But an armed bandit has the status of a robber and not of a thief, so according to this explanation, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan state that it was stolen by a thief?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין, כֵּיוָן דְּמִיטַּמַּר מֵאִינָשֵׁי – גַּנָּב הוּא.
Rav Yosef said to him: The reason that only a thief pays the double payment and not a robber is that a thief denigrates God by exhibiting fear of people by stealing surreptitiously while not exhibiting fear of Heaven. This is in contrast to a robber, who robs openly. Accordingly, the reason that I say that an armed bandit is considered as a thief, is since he hides from people rather than stealing openly. Although he in fact does steal openly, since he does so by employing a weapon he also exhibits fear of people, and is akin to a thief. Therefore, armed bandits are liable to pay a double payment as is a thief, and a claim that the deposit was seized by armed bandits is considered to be the same as a claim that it was stolen by thieves. Consequently, since a paid bailee is absolved by means of such a claim, if it is determined that his claim was false he must pay double.
דְּלָא אַמְרִינְהוּ מִשְּׁמַיְיהוּ. אָמַר, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי: כׇּל הַמּוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ לָמוּת עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵין אוֹמְרִים דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִשְּׁמוֹ.
The Gemara answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the Sages do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.
אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – מִידֵּי דַּהֲוָה אַמּוֹצֵא אֲבֵידָה; מוֹצֵא אֲבֵידָה לָאו כֵּיוָן דְּמִיָּיאַשׁ מָרַהּ מִינַּהּ מִקַּמֵּי דְּתֵיתֵי לִידֵיהּ, קָנֵי לֵיהּ? הַאי נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּמְיָיאֵשׁ מָרַהּ, קָנֵי לֵיהּ. אַלְמָא קָנֵי.
Rabba elaborates on the two possibilities he has just mentioned: If it applies by Torah law, this is just as it is with regard to one who finds a lost item. Is it not the case with regard to one who finds a lost item that once the owner of the item despairs of recovering it, before the item came into the finder’s possession, the finder acquires it and may keep it for himself? The same principle applies to this thief as well: Once the owner of the item despairs of recovering it, the thief acquires it for himself and need no longer return it. Apparently, then, the despair of the owner causes the thief to acquire the stolen item.
אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא דָּמְיָא לַאֲבֵידָה, אֲבֵידָה הוּא דְּכִי אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – בְּהֶתֵּירָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ; אֲבָל הַאי, כֵּיוָן דִּבְאִיסּוּרָא אֲתַאי לִידֵיהּ – מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא;
Or perhaps the case of a stolen item is not comparable to the case of a lost item, as it is only with regard to a lost item that the owner’s despair enables the finder to acquire the item, because the item came into his possession in a permitted manner. But in this case of the thief, since the item came into his possession in a prohibited manner, this case cannot be derived from the halakha of a lost item. If so, the ruling that despair effects acquisition in a case of theft applies not by Torah law but by rabbinic law.
דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן נִיקְנֵי, מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים.
Why would this halakha have been instituted by rabbinic law? As, the Sages said that a thief should acquire the stolen item in this manner, due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. To encourage thieves to repent and repay their victims, the Sages instituted that they need not return the stolen item after the owner despairs of recovering it. Rather, they can reimburse the owner for the monetary value of the item.
אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ – הַלְעִיטֵהוּ לָרָשָׁע וְיָמוּת.
The mishna continues: But during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, when anyone who takes the grapes of another is guilty of theft, there is no requirement to demarcate these vineyards. This is in accordance with the adage: Feed it to the wicked man and let him die. That is, one is not required to take precautions to protect the wicked from the consequences of their own sins. Here too, there is no obligation to warn a thief that the grapes he is stealing are prohibited.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שַׁחֲרִית – בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁיְּלַקְּטוּ עֲנִיִּים הַיּוֹם, יְהֵא הֶפְקֵר״.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: In the morning the homeowner, i.e., the owner of a field, stands and says: Anything that the poor will pick today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. The poor are entitled to glean leftover grain from a field after it is harvested (Leviticus 23:22). Yet there are many halakhot involved in determining what produce they are entitled to take, and not all poor people are learned enough to know these halakhot. Consequently, there will inevitably be poor people who will take a certain amount of grain to which they are not entitled. For this reason, the owner of the field should relinquish, in advance, ownership over whatever the poor might unlawfully take.
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא אוֹמֵר, לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁלָּקְטוּ עֲנִיִּים יְהֵא הֶפְקֵר״!
Rabbi Dosa says: This is not the correct practice. Rather, toward evening the owner should say: Anything that the poor picked today that is not rightfully theirs shall hereby be considered ownerless property. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that the opinions of the pious ones and Rabbi Dosa are the same, this indicates that the declaration of the pious ones was in the past tense, which means that they permitted redemption of fourth-year produce after it was already stolen. If so, the question remains: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan not accept the ruling of the pious ones as authoritative?
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה הֶחְמִירָה תּוֹרָה בְּגַנָּב יוֹתֵר מִגַּזְלָן? אָמַר לָהֶן: זֶה – הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, וְזֶה – לֹא הִשְׁוָה כְּבוֹד עֶבֶד לִכְבוֹד קוֹנוֹ.
§ The Gemara concludes its discussion of theft with several aggadic statements. His students asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: For what reason was the Torah stricter with a thief than with a robber? Only a thief is required to pay the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment, not a robber. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them in response: This one, the robber, equated the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master, and that one, the thief, did not equate the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master. The robber fears neither God nor people, as he is not afraid to rob in public. The thief does not fear God but he does fear other people, which demonstrates that he is more concerned about humans than God.
כִּבְיָכוֹל עָשָׂה עַיִן שֶׁל מַטָּה כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ רוֹאָה, וְאוֹזֶן שֶׁל מַטָּה כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָהּ שׁוֹמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי הַמַּעֲמִיקִים מֵה׳ לַסְתִּר עֵצָה, וְהָיָה בְמַחְשָׁךְ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם וְגוֹ׳״; וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יִרְאֶה יָּהּ וְלֹא יָבִין אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״; וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי [אָמְרוּ] עָזַב ה׳ אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וְאֵין ה׳ רֹאֶה״.
As it were, the thief establishes the eye below, i.e., God’s eye, as though it does not see, and the ear below, i.e., God’s ear, as though it does not hear. The Gemara cites verses that describe people who imagine that God does not see their actions, as it is stated: “Woe to them who seek deeply to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: Who sees us, and who knows us?” (Isaiah 29:15). And it is written: “And they say: The Lord will not see, neither will the God of Jacob give heed” (Psalms 94:7). And it is written: “For they say: The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see” (Ezekiel 9:9).
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כֹּחַ שֶׁל מְלָאכָה, שׁוֹר, שֶׁבִּיטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ – חֲמִשָּׁה; שֶׂה, שֶׁלֹּא בִּיטְּלוֹ מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ – אַרְבָּעָה.
The Gemara discusses why there is a fourfold payment for a sheep but a fivefold payment for an ox. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of labor is. The theft of an ox, which was forced by the thief to cease its labor, leads to a fivefold payment; whereas the theft of a sheep, which was not forced by the thief to cease its labor, as a sheep performs no labor, leads to only a fourfold payment.
אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת: שׁוֹר, שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּרַגְלָיו – חֲמִשָּׁה; שֶׂה, שֶׁהִרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ – אַרְבָּעָה.
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Come and see how great human dignity is. The theft of an ox, which walked on its own legs as the thief stole it, leads to a fivefold payment, whereas the theft of a sheep, which the thief carried on his shoulder as he walked, thereby causing himself embarrassment, leads to only a fourfold payment.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, עֲשָׂרָה תְּנָאִין הִתְנָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Joshua stipulated ten conditions when he apportioned Eretz Yisrael among the tribes:
שֶׁיְּהוּ מַרְעִין בָּחוֹרָשִׁין; וּמְלַקְּטִין עֵצִים בִּשְׂדוֹתֵיהֶם; וּמְלַקְּטִים עֲשָׂבִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – חוּץ מִתִּלְתָּן; וְקוֹטְמִים נְטִיעוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – חוּץ מִגְּרוֹפִיּוֹת שֶׁל זַיִת; וּמַעְיָן הַיּוֹצֵא בַּתְּחִילָּה – בְּנֵי הָעִיר מִסְתַּפְּקִין מִמֶּנּוּ; וּמְחַכִּין בְּיַמָּהּ שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִפְרוֹס קֶלַע וְיַעֲמִיד אֶת הַסְּפִינָה;
The conditions are that people shall have the right to graze their animals in forests, even on private property; and that they shall have the right to gather wood from each other’s fields, to be used as animal fodder; and that they shall have the right to gather wild vegetation for animal fodder in any place except for a field of fenugreek; and that they shall have the right to pluck off a shoot anywhere for propagation and planting, except for olive shoots; and that the people of the city shall have the right to take supplies of water from a spring on private property, even from a spring that emerges for the first time; and that they shall have the right to fish in the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, provided that the fisherman does not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats.
וְנִפְנִין לַאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׂדֶה מְלֵיאָה כַּרְכּוֹם; וּמְהַלְּכִים בִּשְׁבִילֵי הָרְשׁוּת, עַד שֶׁתֵּרֵד רְבִיעָה שְׁנִיָּה; וּמִסְתַּלְּקִין לְצִידֵּי הַדְּרָכִים מִפְּנֵי יְתֵידוֹת הַדְּרָכִים; וְהַתּוֹעֶה בֵּין הַכְּרָמִים – מְפַסֵּיג וְעוֹלֶה מְפַסֵּיג וְיוֹרֵד; וּמֵת מִצְוָה קוֹנֶה מְקוֹמוֹ.
The baraita continues the list of Joshua’s ten conditions: And people shall have the right to relieve themselves outdoors behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron [karkom]; and they shall have the right to walk in permitted paths, i.e., those paths that cut through a private field, throughout the summer until the second rainfall, when crops begin to sprout; and they shall have the right to veer off to the sides of the roads onto private property because of hard protrusions [yeteidot] of the road; and one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road; and that a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place and is buried where it was found.
כִּדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּלוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו מִן הַשָּׂדֶה, וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִיכָּנֵס בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ – מָה הַבְּרִיּוֹת אוֹמְרוֹת עָלָיו? מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לִפְלוֹנִי, וּמָה הַבְּרִיּוֹת מַזִּיקוֹת לוֹ? עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״מִהְיוֹת טוֹב אַל תִּקָּרֵי רָע״. וּמִי כְּתִיב: ״מִהְיוֹת טוֹב אַל תִּקָּרֵי רָע״? אִין, כְּתִיב כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא: ״אַל תִּמְנַע טוֹב מִבְּעָלָיו, בִּהְיוֹת לְאֵל יָדְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת״.
As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s produce was completely harvested from the field, but he does not allow people to enter into his field to shorten their route, what do people say about him? They say: What benefit does so-and-so have by denying entry into his field? And what harm are people causing him by traversing his field? Concerning him, the verse says: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good. The Gemara asks: Is it really written: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good? There is no such verse in the Bible. The Gemara answers: Yes, an idea like this is found in the Bible, albeit in a slightly different form, as it is written like this: “Withhold not good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27).
וְשֶׁיְּהוּ מְכַבְּסִין בַּחֲמִישִׁי בַּשַּׁבָּת – מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד שַׁבָּת.
The baraita teaches: And that one should do laundry on Thursday. This was instituted due to the need to have clean garments in deference to Shabbat.
וְשֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹכְלִין שׁוּם בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת – מִשּׁוּם עוֹנָה; דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר פִּרְיוֹ יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara explains the next listed ordinance: And that one should eat garlic Shabbat eve. This is due to the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for conjugal relations. As it is written concerning the righteous: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, who brings forth his fruit in his season” (Psalms 1:3); and Rabbi Yehuda says, and some say it was Rav Naḥman, and some say it was Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: This is referring to one who engages in sexual intercourse every Shabbat eve.
וְשֶׁתְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מַשְׁכֶּמֶת וְאוֹפָה – כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא פַּת מְצוּיָה לַעֲנִיִּים.
The next ordinance is: And that a woman should rise early and bake bread on those days when she bakes. This Gemara explains that this was instituted so that bread should be available for poor people, who go begging for bread in the mornings.
וְשֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹכְלִין מְחַזְּרִין בָּעֲיָירוֹת – מִשּׁוּם תַּכְשִׁיטֵי נָשִׁים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְגַּנּוּ עַל בַּעֲלֵיהֶם.
The Gemara discusses the next of Ezra’s ordinances: And that peddlers should circulate through all the towns. This Gemara explains that this is because peddlers supply women’s cosmetics, and therefore Ezra instituted this practice so that women should not become unattractive to their husbands.
לָשׁוֹן סוּרְסִי לָמָּה? אוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אוֹ לָשׁוֹן יְוָנִית! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: [בְּ]בָבֶל – לְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי לָמָּה? אוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אוֹ לָשׁוֹן פָּרְסִי! אָמְרִי: לָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי לְחוּד, חׇכְמַת יְוָנִית לְחוּד.
why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language. And Rabbi Yosei said similarly: In Babylonia, why would one speak the Aramaic language? One should speak either the sacred tongue or the Persian language. At any rate, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek. The Sages say in response: The Greek language is discrete, and Greek wisdom is discrete. In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.
וְחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית מִי אֲסִירָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי: בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל –
The Gemara asks a question with regard to this baraita: And is it really prohibited to study Greek wisdom? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: In Eretz Yisrael,
לָשׁוֹן סוּרְסִי לָמָּה? אוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אוֹ לָשׁוֹן יְוָנִית! וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: [בְּ]בָבֶל – לְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי לָמָּה? אוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אוֹ לָשׁוֹן פָּרְסִי! אָמְרִי: לָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי לְחוּד, חׇכְמַת יְוָנִית לְחוּד.
why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language. And Rabbi Yosei said similarly: In Babylonia, why would one speak the Aramaic language? One should speak either the sacred tongue or the Persian language. At any rate, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek. The Sages say in response: The Greek language is discrete, and Greek wisdom is discrete. In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל סִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ – מְסַמֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ – מְקַטֵּעַ אֶת יָדוֹ, שִׁיבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ – מְשַׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַכֵּה אָדָם״ וּ״מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה״; מָה מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה – לְתַשְׁלוּמִין, אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם – לְתַשְׁלוּמִין.
The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind. The principle implicit in the mishna is derived from a verbal analogy in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita: Based on the verse: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (Exodus 21:24), one might have thought that if one blinded the eye of another, the court blinds his eye as punishment; or if one severed the hand of another, the court severs his hand; or if one broke the leg of another, the court breaks his leg. Therefore, the verse states: “One who strikes a person,” and the verse also states: “And one who strikes an animal,” to teach that just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.
וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא תִקְחוּ כֹפֶר לְנֶפֶשׁ רֹצֵחַ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא רָשָׁע לָמוּת״ – לְנֶפֶשׁ רוֹצֵחַ אִי אַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ כּוֹפֶר, אֲבָל אַתָּה לוֹקֵחַ כּוֹפֶר לְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חוֹזְרִין.
And if it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation: The verse states: “And you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die” (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another’s extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.
צַעַר – דְּאִית לֵיהּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ, וְצָוַוחי [לֵיהּ] מֵהָנְהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי. רִיפּוּי – דְּבָעֵי אַסּוֹיֵי. שֶׁבֶת – דַּהֲוָה מְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵּי, דְּבָעֵיא מַחְוֵי גַּוְנֵי אַרֵישֵׁיהּ; וְלָא מַחְוֵי – מֵהָנְהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי. בּוֹשֶׁת – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹשֶׁת גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
The Gemara explains how one could be liable for each of the five types of indemnity by smearing a depilatory agent: The father experiences pain in a case where he has fissures on his head and has pain from those fissures. He incurs medical costs because he requires healing for the fissures. He incurs loss of livelihood in a case where he would dance in taverns to earn money, which requires him to make various gestures with his head and his hair while dancing; and now he cannot gesture because of those fissures on his head. He experiences humiliation, because there is no humiliation greater than losing one’s hair.
אֶלָּא מַאי, מִשּׁוּם זִילוּתָא? אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹטֶה נָמֵי! אָמְרִי: שׁוֹטֶה – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹשֶׁת גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rather, what do you mean by stating that the compensation is due to disgrace? If compensation is granted due to disgrace, then an imbecile should receive compensation as well. The Sages say in response: With regard to an imbecile, you can have no greater humiliation than this. It is impossible to degrade him further.
מַאי ״סְגוּלָּה״? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: דִּיקְלָא דְּאָכֵיל מִינֵּיהּ תַּמְרֵי.
The two baraitot stated that the father makes a safe investment for his minor children with the compensation paid to them. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: The father should purchase a Torah scroll for his child. Rabba bar Rav Huna, says: The father should purchase a date palm, from which the child will consume dates.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מָנֶה. סְטָרוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. לְאַחַר יָדוֹ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז.
MISHNA: One who strikes another must give him a sela. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that he must give him one hundred dinars. If he slapped another on the cheek, he must give him two hundred dinars. If he slapped him on the cheek with the back of his hand, which is more degrading than a slap with the palm, he must give him four hundred dinars.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַמְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְהוּא צָרִיךְ לְאוֹתוֹ דָּבָר, הוּא נַעֲנֶה תְּחִילָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״וַה׳ שָׁב אֶת שְׁבוּת אִיּוֹב בְּהִתְפַּלְלוֹ בְּעַד רֵעֵהוּ״.
§ The Gemara cites a series of questions that Rava asked Rabba bar Mari, the first one being related to the previous topic of discussion. Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby the Sages stated: Anyone who asks for compassion from Heaven on behalf of another, and he requires compassion from Heaven concerning that same matter, he is answered first? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source for this is as it is written: “And the Lord changed the fortune of Job, when he prayed for his friends” (Job 42:10).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מֵהָתָם, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיִּרְפָּא אֱלֹהִים אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַמְהוֹתָיו״ [וְגוֹ׳], וּכְתִיב: ״וַה׳ פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמָר וְגוֹ׳״ – כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר אַבְרָהָם אֶל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ.
Rava said to him: You said the proof from there, from a verse in the Writings, and I say the proof from here, from a verse in the Torah. As it is written: “And Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants, and they bore children” (Genesis 20:17), and it is written immediately following that: “And the Lord remembered Sarah, as He had said” (Genesis 21:1), with the pronoun interpreted homiletically: As Abraham said with regard to Abimelech. Because Abraham prayed for Abimelech that the women of his household should give birth, Abraham himself was answered concerning that matter.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: חַבְרָךְ קַרְיָיךְ ״חֲמָרָא״ – אוּכָּפָא לְגַבָּיךְ מוּשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר: הָגָר שִׁפְחַת שָׂרַי, אֵי מִזֶּה בָאת וְאָנָה תֵלֵכִי? וַתֹּאמֶר: מִפְּנֵי שָׂרַי גְּבִרְתִּי אָנֹכִי בּוֹרַחַת״.
Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby the Sages stated: If your friend calls you a donkey, prepare a saddle for your back, i.e., do not contest his statement? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written in the conversation between the angel and Hagar: “And he said: Hagar, maidservant of Sarai, from where did you come and to where are you going? And she said: I am fleeing from the face of my mistress Sarai” (Genesis 16:8). Though Hagar was no longer the maidservant of Sarai, since the angel referred to her as such, she responded in kind.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, מְנָא הָא מִילְּתָא דְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מִילְּתָא גְּנָאָה דְּאִית בָּיךְ – קְדֵים אַמְרַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר: עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם אָנֹכִי״.
Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby people say: If you are aware of a derogatory matter that is found in you, say it first before others say it about you? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written with regard to Eliezer: “And he said: I am Abraham’s servant” (Genesis 24:34), immediately proclaiming that he is a servant.
אָמַר רַב חָנָן: הַמּוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ – הוּא נֶעֱנָשׁ תְּחִילָּה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם: חֲמָסִי עָלֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ״. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִית לֵיהּ דִּינָא בְּאַרְעָא.
§ In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. Rabbi Ḥanan says: One who passes the judgment of another to Heaven is punished first, as it is stated: “And Sarai said to Abram: My wrong be upon you, I gave my handmaid into your bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: The Lord judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. And it is written: “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her” (Genesis 23:2), as Sarah died first. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only in a situation where he has someone to do judgment for him on earth and has no need to appeal to the heavenly court.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אוֹי לוֹ לַצּוֹעֵק יוֹתֵר מִן הַנִּצְעָק. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֶחָד הַצּוֹעֵק וְאֶחָד הַנִּצְעָק בַּמַּשְׁמָע, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין לַצּוֹעֵק יוֹתֵר מִן הַנִּצְעָק.
Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Woe to he who cries out to Heaven more than the one about whom he is crying out. The Gemara comments: This concept is also taught in a baraita: Both the one who cries out and the one about whom he is crying out are included in the verse discussing the cries of an orphan who is mistreated: “If you afflict them, for if they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry. My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword” (Exodus 22:22–23). But they are quicker to punish the one who cries out than the one about whom he is crying out, as in the incident with Sarai.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם מִן הַנִּרְדָּפִין, וְלֹא מִן הָרוֹדְפִין. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ נִרְדׇּף בָּעוֹפוֹת יוֹתֵר מִתּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, וְהִכְשִׁירָן הַכָּתוּב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should always be among those who are pursued and not among the pursuers. One can prove that this is so, as none among birds are pursued more than doves and pigeons, as all predators hunt them, and from all birds the verse deemed them fit to be sacrificed on the altar.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחַ נָמֵי! אָמְרִי: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים.
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the robber has not acquired it, then even if he enhanced it that should be the halakha as well. The item should still belong to the robbery victim and the robber should not be entitled to compensation. The Sages say in response: The fact that the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement is due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. In order to ease the burden of one who desires to repent, the Sages instituted that the robber be reimbursed for the increase in the value of the animal. Otherwise, a robber might refrain from returning a stolen item.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימֵי רַבִּי נִשְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ. דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה, אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ: רֵיקָה! אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה תְּשׁוּבָה, אֲפִילּוּ אַבְנֵט אֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ! וְנִמְנַע וְלֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: הַגַּזְלָנִין וּמַלְוֵי רִבִּיּוֹת שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּ – אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מֵהֶם, וְהַמְקַבֵּל מֵהֶם – אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the statement of the Tosefta, was taught in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident with regard to one man who desired to repent after having been a thief for many years. His wife said to him: Empty one [reika], if you repent you will have to return all the stolen items to their rightful owners, and even the belt that you are wearing is not yours, and he refrained and did not repent. At that time, the Sages said: With regard to robbers or usurers that returned either the stolen item or the interest to the one from whom they took it, one should not accept it from them. And concerning one who does accept it from them, the Sages are displeased with him.
וְהָתַנְיָא: לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא, לֹא יֹאמַר: ״אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וַחֲבֵירַי מְחַיְּיבִין, אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁחֲבֵירַי רַבּוּ עָלַי״, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה סּוֹד״!
But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when a judge leaves the courthouse, he should not say to the litigant: I found you innocent and my colleagues found you liable, but what can I do, since my colleagues outnumber me? And it is concerning a circumstance such as this that it is stated: “He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13).
וּמַאי שְׁנָא דַּנְכּוּ וְאִיסּוּר דִּפְטִירִי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיכִי לְמִיגְמַר? רַבִּי חִיָּיא נָמֵי לָאו לְמִיגְמַר קָא בָּעֵי! רַבִּי חִיָּיא, לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הוּא דַּעֲבַד. כִּדְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וְהוֹדַעְתָּ לָהֶם״ – זֶה
The Gemara asks: But what is different about Dankhu and Issur, who are exempt due to the fact that they do not need to learn about assessing currency? Rabbi Ḥiyya too did not need to learn, as he was also an expert. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ḥiyya was not actually required to return a dinar to this woman, but when he did so he acted beyond the letter of the law. This is as that which Rav Yosef taught concerning the verse: “And you shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Exodus 18:20): “And you shall show them”; this is referring to
בֵּית חַיֵּיהֶם. ״אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – זוֹ גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. ״יֵלְכוּ״ – זוֹ בִּיקּוּר חוֹלִים. ״בָּהּ״ – זוֹ קְבוּרָה. ״אֶת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה״ – זֶה הַדִּין. ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן״ – זוֹ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
the core of their existence, i.e., Torah study, which is the source of life. “The way”; this is referring to acts of kindness. “They must walk”; this is referring to visiting the sick. “Wherein”; this is referring to the burial of the dead. “The work”; this is referring to conducting oneself in accordance with the law. “That they must do”; this is referring to conducting oneself beyond the letter of the law. This indicates that the Torah mandates that people conduct themselves beyond the letter of the law.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רוֹעֶה! וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: סְתָם רוֹעֶה פָּסוּל.
The reason cited for the lack of credibility of the oath of the shepherd is that he is guilty of robbery. The Gemara asks: But why not let Rabbi Zeira derive that he is disqualified from testifying or taking an oath because he is a shepherd; and Rav Yehuda says that an ordinary shepherd is disqualified from testifying? A shepherd is presumed to be a robber since shepherds allow the animals under their care to graze in the fields of other people.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְּעָלְמָא. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, אֲנַן חֵיוָתָא לְרוֹעָה הֵיכִי מָסְרִינַן? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! אֶלָּא חֲזָקָה: אֵין אָדָם חוֹטֵא וְלֹא לוֹ.
The Gemara rejects this: This is not difficult. That case, where he is presumed a robber, is a case where he herds his own animals, and this case, where he is not presumed a robber, is a case where he herds animals that belong to others. As if you do not say so, if even one who herds the animals of others is presumably a robber, how do we give our animals to a shepherd? Isn’t it written: “Do not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14)? It is prohibited to cause others to commit a transgression. Rather, there is a presumption that a person sins only for his own benefit, and one would not commit robbery for the benefit of animals that are not his.
לָא אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הַאי דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה יִשָּׁבַע. נֵימָא מִיגּוֹ דַּחֲשִׁיד אַמָּמוֹנָא חֲשִׁיד אַשְּׁבוּעָתָא.
The Gemara answers: In principle, we do not say that since one is suspect with regard to financial dishonesty he is suspect with regard to taking an oath. This is because even one who steals property is presumed to consider taking a false oath more severe. As if you do not say so, then with regard to that which the Merciful One states, that one who admits to part of the claim must take an oath, let us also say that his oath cannot be accepted, as since he is suspect with regard to financial dishonesty he is suspect with regard to taking an oath.
תִּדַּע דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכּוֹפֵר בְּמִלְוֶה – כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת. בְּפִיקָּדוֹן – פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת.
The Gemara adds: Know that this distinction is correct, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Ḥisda says: One who denies a claim that he received a loan and is contradicted by witnesses is fit to bear witness in a different case. By contrast, if one denies receiving a deposit and witnesses testify that he is lying, he is disqualified from bearing witness in other cases. The reason for this distinction is that since money is borrowed to be spent, the assumption is that the debtor did so, and his denial is merely an attempt to buy time until he can repay the debt. A deposited item, by contrast, may not be used by the bailee, so if he denies having received the deposit he presumably stole it. Therefore, he is disqualified from bearing witness. This demonstrates the distinction between lying in court about a debt and lying about property.
מַאי טַעְמָא – הָוֵי תּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים, וְהַתּוֹפֵס לְבַעַל חוֹב בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים – לֹא קָנָה.
What is the reason for this? The reason is that it is a case of one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owes money to other creditors as well; and one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others does not acquire the assets for him. Although a creditor can himself seize the assets as payment for the debt, no one else can take action that will benefit one person at the expense of others. Similarly, since everyone has equal rights to an ownerless item that is found, one person cannot deprive all others of that right on behalf of another person.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵית בְּהוּ סִימָן – נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן – קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ וּמַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ. כִּי לֹא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן – לָא קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי עֲבִידִי רַבָּנַן דִּמְשַׁנּוּ בְּמִלַּיְיהוּ – בְּמַסֶּכֶת, וּבְפוּרְיָא
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.
וּבְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵידְתָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. אִי יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְשַׁנֵּי אֶלָּא בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת – מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מְשַׁנֵּי בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
With regard to an item that a poor person needs, e.g., a blanket, that a lender took as collateral when lending him money, it is written: “You shall restore [hashev tashiv] to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 24:13). I have derived only the obligation to return his garment each night in a case where the lender took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “Hashev tashiv,” to teach that he must return it in any case.
״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּשְׁכְּנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת. מִשְׁכְּנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חָבֹל תַּחְבֹּל״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
The Gemara brings another derivation from a compound verb written with regard to returning collateral: “If you take as collateral [ḥavol taḥbol] your neighbor’s garment, you shall restore it to him until the sun sets” (Exodus 22:25). I have derived only the obligation to return his garment before sunset in a case where the lender took collateral with the sanction of the court. From where do I derive the obligation to return his garment each night even in a case where the lender took collateral without the sanction of the court? The verse states: “Ḥavol taḥbol,” to teach that he must return it in any case.
בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת לֹא יִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אָמַר לוֹ אָבִיו ״הִיטַּמֵּא״, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אַל תַּחְזִיר״ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁמַע לוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי ה׳״, כּוּלְּכֶם חַיָּיבִין בִּכְבוֹדִי.
§ The mishna teaches: And if the animal was lost in a graveyard and was found by a priest, he may not become impure to return it. In a case where a priest’s father said to him: Become impure, or in a case where one was obligated to return the animal and his father said to him: Do not return it, he may not listen to his father. The Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught: From where is it derived that if a priest’s father said to him: Become impure, or that if one’s father said to him: Do not return a lost item that you found; he should not listen to him? It is derived from the verse, as it is stated: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father, and you shall observe My Shabbatot; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:3). From the fact that the verse concludes: “I am the Lord,” it is derived that: You are all, parent and child alike, obligated in My honor. Therefore, if a parent commands his child to refrain from observing a mitzva, he must not obey the command.
מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמַד צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא קָאָמַר, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי. אֲבָל מְסַיְּימִי קְרָאֵי דָּרְשִׁינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר, מִשּׁוּם מַאי לָאו מִשּׁוּם צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דָּרְשִׁינַן?
From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law. As even Rabbi Shimon says that he disagreed with the opinion of the Rabbis only because the verses are not clearly defined; but had the verses been clearly defined, we would have learned the same a fortiori inference. Due to what factor can that inference be learned? What, is it not due to the matter of suffering of animals, which is a factor in unloading and not a factor in loading, that we would have learned the a fortiori inference?
מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הִין צֶדֶק״, וַהֲלֹא ״הִין״ בִּכְלַל אֵיפָה הָיָה? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: שֶׁיְּהֵא הֵן שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק, וְלָאו שֶׁלְּךָ צֶדֶק. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב.
The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited.
מַתְנִי׳ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאוֹנָאָה בְּמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, כָּךְ אוֹנָאָה בִּדְבָרִים. לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: בְּכַמָּה חֵפֶץ זֶה? וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח. אִם הָיָה בַּעַל תְּשׁוּבָה, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: זְכוֹר מַעֲשֶׂיךָ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִם הוּא בֶּן גֵּרִים, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: זְכוֹר מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ״.
MISHNA: Just as there is a prohibition against exploitation [ona’a] in buying and selling, so is there ona’a in statements, i.e., verbal mistreatment. The mishna proceeds to cite examples of verbal mistreatment. One may not say to a seller: For how much are you selling this item, if he does not wish to purchase it. He thereby upsets the seller when the deal fails to materialize. The mishna lists other examples: If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deeds of your ancestors, as it is stated: “And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him” (Exodus 22:20).
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״ – בְּאוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּאוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ״, הֲרֵי אוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן אָמוּר! הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״לֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״? בְּאוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: “And you shall not mistreat [tonu] one man his colleague; and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 25:17). The tanna explains: The verse is speaking with regard to verbal mistreatment. The baraita proceeds: Do you say that it is speaking of verbal mistreatment [be’ona’at devarim], or perhaps it is speaking only with regard to monetary exploitation [be’ona’at mammon]? When it says in a previous verse: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand, you shall not exploit [tonu] his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), monetary exploitation is explicitly stated. How then do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall not mistreat one man his colleague”? It is with regard to verbal mistreatment.
הָא כֵּיצַד? אִם הָיָה בַּעַל תְּשׁוּבָה, אֵל יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״זְכוֹר מַעֲשֶׂיךָ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים״. אִם הָיָה בֶּן גֵּרִים, אַל יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״זְכוֹר מַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתֶיךָ״. אִם הָיָה גֵּר וּבָא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, אַל יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״פֶּה שֶׁאָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, בָּא לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה״?
How so? If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deed of your ancestors. If one is a convert and he came to study Torah, one may not say to him: Does the mouth that ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot], and repugnant creatures, and creeping animals, comes to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Almighty?
אִם הָיוּ יִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עָלָיו, אִם הָיוּ חֳלָאִים בָּאִין עָלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְקַבֵּר אֶת בָּנָיו, אַל יֹאמַר לוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵירָיו לְאִיּוֹב: ״הֲלֹא יִרְאָתְךָ כִּסְלָתֶךָ תִּקְוָתְךָ וְתֹם דְּרָכֶיךָ. זְכׇר נָא מִי הוּא נָקִי אָבָד״.
If torments are afflicting a person, if illnesses are afflicting him, or if he is burying his children, one may not speak to him in the manner that the friends of Job spoke to him: “Is not your fear of God your confidence, and your hope the integrity of your ways? Remember, I beseech you, whoever perished, being innocent?” (Job 4:6–7). Certainly you sinned, as otherwise you would not have suffered misfortune.
אִם הָיוּ חַמָּרִים מְבַקְּשִׁין תְּבוּאָה מִמֶּנּוּ, לֹא יֹאמַר לָהֶם: ״לְכוּ אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר תְּבוּאָה״, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר מֵעוֹלָם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא יִתְלֶה עֵינָיו עַל הַמִּקָּח, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ דָּמִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַלֵּב, וְכׇל דָּבָר הַמָּסוּר לַלֵּב נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״.
Likewise, if donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all. He thereby causes the donkey drivers and the would-be seller anguish. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even cast his eyes on the merchandise for sale, creating the impression that he is interested, at a time when he does not have money to purchase it. Verbal mistreatment is not typically obvious, and it is difficult to ascertain the intent of the offender, as the matter is given to the heart of each individual, as only he knows what his intention was when he spoke. And with regard to any matter given to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 25:17), as God is privy to the intent of the heart.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: גָּדוֹל אוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים מֵאוֹנָאַת מָמוֹן, שֶׁזֶּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְזֶה לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְיָרֵאתָ מֵאֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: זֶה בְּגוּפוֹ וְזֶה בְּמָמוֹנוֹ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן, וְזֶה לֹא נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is the transgression of verbal mistreatment than the transgression of monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, verbal mistreatment, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” But with regard to that, monetary exploitation, it is not stated: “And you shall fear your God.” And Rabbi Elazar said this explanation: This, verbal mistreatment, affects one’s body; but that, monetary exploitation, affects one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, monetary exploitation, is given to restitution; but that, verbal mistreatment, is not given to restitution.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, כְּאִילּוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרַתְּ, דְּחָזֵינָא לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל סוּמָּקָא וְאָתֵי חִוּוֹרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: בְּמַעְרְבָא בְּמַאי זְהִירִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּאַחְווֹרֵי אַפֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַכֹּל יוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם, חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה.
The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three.
הַכֹּל סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כָּל הַיּוֹרְדִין לְגֵיהִנָּם עוֹלִים, חוּץ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיּוֹרְדִין וְאֵין עוֹלִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, וְהַמְכַנֶּה שֵׁם רַע לַחֲבֵירוֹ. מְכַנֶּה הַיְינוּ מַלְבִּין? אַף עַל גַּב דְּדָשׁ בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to Gehenna? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe.
אָמַר רַב חִנָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״? עַם שֶׁאִתְּךָ בְּתוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְווֹת, אַל תּוֹנֵיהוּ. אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בְּאוֹנָאַת אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁדִּמְעָתָהּ מְצוּיָה, אוֹנָאָתָהּ קְרוֹבָה.
§ Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כׇּל הַשְּׁעָרִים נִנְעָלִים, חוּץ מִשַּׁעֲרֵי אוֹנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה ה׳ נִצָּב עַל חוֹמַת אֲנָךְ וּבְיָדוֹ אֲנָךְ״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל נִפְרָע בִּידֵי שָׁלִיחַ, חוּץ מֵאוֹנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְיָדוֹ אֲנָךְ״.
Rav Ḥisda says: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment, as it is stated: “And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall built with a plumb line, and a plumb line in His hand” (Amos 7:7). God stands with the scales of justice in His hand to determine if one has been subjected to injustice. Rabbi Elazar says: In response to all transgressions, God punishes the perpetrator by means of an agent, except for mistreatment [ona’a], as it is stated: “And a plumb line [anakh] in His hand.” The term for mistreatment and the term for plumb line are spelled in a similar manner, indicating that God Himself inflicts retribution.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין הַפַּרְגּוֹד נִנְעָל בִּפְנֵיהֶם: אוֹנָאָה, וְגָזֵל, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אוֹנָאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְיָדוֹ אֲנָךְ״. גָּזֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״חָמָס וָשֹׁד יִשָּׁמַע בָּהּ עַל פָּנַי תָּמִיד״. עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״הָעָם הַמַּכְעִיסִים אוֹתִי עַל פָּנַי תָּמִיד וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Abbahu says: There are three sins before whose transgressors the curtain [hapargod] between the world and the Divine Presence is not locked; their sins reach the Divine Presence. They are: Verbal mistreatment, robbery, and idol worship. Mistreatment, as it is stated: “And a plumb line in His hand”; robbery, as it is stated: “Violence and robbery are heard in her, they are before Me continually” (Jeremiah 6:7); idol worship, as it is stated: “A people that angers Me before Me continually; that sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon bricks” (Isaiah 65:3).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם זָהִיר בִּכְבוֹד אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בְּרָכָה מְצוּיָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְאַבְרָם הֵטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ״. וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לִבְנֵי מָחוֹזָא: אוֹקִירוּ לִנְשַׁיְיכוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִתְעַתְּרוּ.
And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (Genesis 12:16). And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְאַנֶּה אֶת הַגֵּר, עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין. וְהַלּוֹחֲצוֹ, עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם.
§ The Sages taught: One who verbally mistreats the convert violates three prohibitions, and one who oppresses him in other ways violates two.
מַאי שְׁנָא מְאַנֶּה, דִּכְתִיבִי שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין: ״וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה״, ״וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ״, ״וְלֹא תוֹנוּ אִישׁ אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ״, וְגֵר בִּכְלַל עֲמִיתוֹ הוּא. לוֹחֲצוֹ נָמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּתִיבִי: ״וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ״, ״וְגֵר לֹא תִלְחָץ״, ״וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לוֹ כְּנֹשֶׁה״, וְגֵר בַּכְּלָל הוּא! אֶלָּא, אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה.
The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to verbal mistreatment, that three prohibitions are written concerning it: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert” (Exodus 22:20); “And when a convert lives in your land, you shall not mistreat him” (Leviticus 19:33); “And you shall not mistreat, each man his colleague” (Leviticus 25:17), and a convert is included in the category of colleague? With regard to one who also oppresses a convert as well, three prohibitions are written: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert, nor oppress him” (Exodus 22:20); “And you shall not oppress a convert (Exodus 23:9); “And you shall not be to him like a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). This last prohibition is a general prohibition, in which converts are included. Consequently, it is not correct that one who oppresses a convert violates only two prohibitions. Rather, both this one, who verbally mistreats a convert, and that one, who oppresses him, violate three prohibitions.
מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְגֵר לֹא תוֹנֶה וְלֹא תִלְחָצֶנּוּ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם״? תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מוּם שֶׁבְּךָ אַל תֹּאמַר לַחֲבֵרֶךָ. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: דִּזְקִיף לֵיהּ זְקִיפָא בִּדְיוּתְקֵיהּ, לָא נֵימָא לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ זְקֵיף בִּינִיתָא.
What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat a convert nor oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20)? We learned in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: A defect that is in you, do not mention it in another. Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst. And this explains the adage that people say: One who has a person hanged in his family [bidyotkei], does not say to another member of his household: Hang a fish for me, as the mention of hanging is demeaning for that family.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה סַמְיוּת עֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁל מַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית. אָדָם קוֹרֵא לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״רָשָׁע״ – יוֹרֵד עִמּוֹ לְחַיָּיו. וְהֵם מְבִיאִין עֵדִים וְלַבְלָר וְקוּלְמוֹס וּדְיוֹ, וְכוֹתְבִין וְחוֹתְמִין: פְּלוֹנִי זֶה כָּפַר בֵּאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend money with interest. If a person calls another a wicked person in public, the other becomes insulted and he harasses him in all aspects of his life because he called him by this disgraceful name. But they who lend with interest bring witnesses and a scribe [velavlar] and a pen [vekulmos] and ink and write and sign a document that testifies: So-and-so denies the existence of the God of Israel, as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה צוֹעֲקִין וְאֵינָן נַעֲנִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמַלְוֶה אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים, וְהַקּוֹנֶה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ, וּמִי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ מוֹשֶׁלֶת עָלָיו.
The Sages taught in a baraita: There are three who cry out and are not answered, as they are responsible for their own troubles. And they are: One who has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses, and one who acquires a master for himself, and one whose wife rules over him.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמַלְוֶה אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים – עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: גּוֹרֵם קְלָלָה לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תֵּאָלַמְנָה שִׂפְתֵי שָׁקֶר הַדּוֹבְרוֹת עַל צַדִּיק עָתָק״.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Whoever has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses violates the prohibition of: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as this tempts the borrower not to repay his debt. And Reish Lakish says: He brings a curse upon himself, as it is stated: “Let the lying lips be dumb, which speak arrogantly against the righteous, with pride and contempt” (Psalms 31:19), as when the lender comes to claim his money without any proof, people will think he is falsely accusing the borrower, and they will end up cursing him.
קוֹנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ מַאי הִיא? אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: תּוֹלֶה נְכָסָיו בְּגוֹי אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו בְּחַיָּיו. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּבִישׁ לֵיהּ בְּהָא מָתָא וְלָא אָזֵיל לְמָתָא אַחֲרִיתִי
The Gemara clarifies: One who acquires a master for himself, what is it? There are those who say that it is referring to one who attributes his property to a gentile. He falsely claims that his possessions belong to a gentile in order to evade his obligations, thereby inviting the gentile to take advantage of this declaration. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who writes a document bequeathing his property as a gift to his children in his lifetime, as he becomes financially dependent on them. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who has bad fortune in this town but does not go to a different town. He is consequently responsible for his own misfortunes.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּפַת שַׁחֲרִית: מַצֶּלֶת מִן הַחַמָּה, וּמִן הַצִּנָּה, וּמִן הַזִּיקִין, וּמִן הַמַּזִּיקִין, וּמַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי, וְזוֹכֶה בַּדִּין, לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וּלְלַמֵּד, וּדְבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין, וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ,
§ The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּפַת שַׁחֲרִית: מַצֶּלֶת מִן הַחַמָּה, וּמִן הַצִּנָּה, וּמִן הַזִּיקִין, וּמִן הַמַּזִּיקִין, וּמַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי, וְזוֹכֶה בַּדִּין, לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וּלְלַמֵּד, וּדְבָרָיו נִשְׁמָעִין, וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ,
§ The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession.
וְאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ מַעֲלֶה הֶבֶל, וְנִזְקָק לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאַוֶּה לְאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת, וְהוֹרֶגֶת כִּינָּה שֶׁבִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מוֹצִיאָ[ה] אֶת הַקִּנְאָה וּמַכְנֶיסֶ[ת] אֶת הָאַהֲבָה.
In addition, his flesh does not generate excess sweat, and he engages in intercourse with his wife at the proper time, and he does not lust for another woman, and this meal is so advantageous that it even kills any louse in his intestines. And some say it even removes jealousy and brings in love. Since he is completely healthy, he is not inclined to be angered by others.
רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא אִבָּא אַגּוּדָּא דְנַהֲרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נִיקּוֹץ מָר! אֲמַר לְהוּ: קוּצוּ עִילָּאֵי וְתַתָּאֵי, וַהֲדַר נִיקּוֹץ אֲנָא. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשׁוֹט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשׁוֹט אֲחֵרִים!
The Gemara relates another incident: Rabba bar Rav Huna had a certain forest on the bank of a river. They said to him: Let the Master cut down the trees on the riverbank in accordance with the above statement. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to them: Let those above and below me along the river cut down their trees first, and then I will cut down my trees. I will achieve nothing by cutting down my trees on my own. The Gemara asks: How can he do so, i.e., wait for others to act? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says concerning this: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others. Therefore, one must first perform the required action himself before offering advice to others.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַאי מַאן דְּאַחְזֵיק בֵּינֵי אַחֵי וּבֵינֵי שׁוּתָּפֵי, חֲצִיפָא הָוֵי. סַלּוֹקֵי לָא מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: נָמֵי מְסַלְּקִינַן. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא – לָא מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Naḥman said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him.
נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא – מְסַלְּקִינַן לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה׳״.
The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.
זְבַן מִגּוֹי – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲרִי אַבְרַחִי לָךְ מִמִּצְרָךְ. זַבֵּין לְגוֹי – גּוֹי וַדַּאי לָאו בַּר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב״ הוּא. שַׁמּוֹתֵי וַדַּאי מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ, עַד דִּמְקַבֵּל עֲלֵיהּ כֹּל אוּנְסֵי דְּאָתֵי לֵיהּ מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ.
The Gemara clarifies this ruling: If a buyer bought the field from a gentile it does not apply, as he can say to the neighbor: It is better for you that I bought the field, as I have chased away a lion for you from the border; since the neighbor certainly prefers having a Jewish neighbor to having a gentile neighbor. If a seller sold a field to a gentile, the gentile is certainly not bound by the command of: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). The gentile is therefore under no obligation to refrain from purchasing this land. Nevertheless, we certainly excommunicate the one who sold it to the gentile until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all damage resulting from accidents that might befall the neighbor on the gentile’s account.
אַרְעָא לְבָתֵּי וְאַרְעָא לְזַרְעָא – יִשּׁוּב עֲדִיף, וְלֵית בַּהּ מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא.
If two people wanted to purchase the land, but one desired the land for building houses and the other wished to purchase the land for planting, the settling of the land through construction of houses is preferable, and this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Therefore, he may sell to the one who wants to build a house there, even if he is not a bordering neighbor and the other potential buyer is.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁנָה לָנוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיֵּהָנֶה מִמָּמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ. חֲדָא – הָא דִּתְנַן.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In three places Rabbi Yehuda taught us the principle that it is forbidden for a person to derive benefit from the property of another without his full awareness and consent, even if the other does not suffer a loss. One of the places where we are taught this principle is that which we learn in the mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda does not allow one to reside in another’s property without paying him rent.
אִידַּךְ מָה הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן צֶמֶר לַצַבָּע לִצְבּוֹעַ לוֹ אָדוֹם וּצְבָעוֹ שָׁחוֹר, שָׁחוֹר וּצְבָעוֹ אָדוֹם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יוֹתֵר עַל הַהוֹצָאָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַהוֹצָאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
What is another place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 100b): If one gives wool to a dyer to dye it red for him and instead he dyed it black, or to dye it black and he dyed it red, Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the value of the enhancement exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement. But the dyer may not keep the dyed wool for himself, as it is forbidden for one to benefit from another’s property.
וְאִידַּךְ מַאי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ וְהִשְׁלִישׁ אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״אִם אֵין אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְךָ מִכָּאן וְעַד זְמַן פְּלוֹנִי – תֵּן לוֹ שְׁטָרוֹ״. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נָתַן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִתֵּן.
And what is the other, third place where we are taught this principle from Rabbi Yehuda’s statements? As we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 168a): In a case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, and he deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee, to ensure that the creditor not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I do not give you the balance from now until such and such a time, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated in the note; if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor has not given the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee shall give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor’s stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee shall not give it, as the stipulation is void. Here too, the reason is that the creditor is forbidden to benefit from the property of another.
בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״וְהַמַּשְׂכִּלִים יַזְהִרוּ כְּזֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ״ – זֶה דַּיָּין שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִתּוֹ, וְגַבָּאֵי צְדָקָה. ״וּמַצְדִּיקֵי הָרַבִּים כַּכּוֹכָבִים לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד״ – אֵלּוּ מְלַמְּדֵי תִינוֹקוֹת. כְּגוֹן מַאן? אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת. דְּרַב אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת דַּהֲוָה קָאֵי בְּגִינְּתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁבַקְתֵּיהּ לְהֵימָנוּתָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין דְּלָא חַזְיָא לִי, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דַּעְתַּאי עִלָּוַיְהוּ.
It was taught in a baraita: “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”; this is a judge who judges an absolutely true judgment and also charity collectors. “And they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever”; these are schoolteachers. The Gemara asks: Like whom? Certainly not every schoolteacher is worthy of such accolades. Rav said: For example, Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat. As it is told that Rav once found Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat standing in a garden. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned your trust and neglected your students? Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat said to him: It has been thirteen years now that I have not seen my garden, and even now my thoughts are on the children.
(סִימָן: גָּדוֹל, מִקְדָּשׁ, מֹשֶׁה) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גָּדוֹל הַמְעַשֶּׂה יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹשֶׂה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה מַעֲשֵׂה הַצְּדָקָה שָׁלוֹם, וַעֲבֹדַת הַצְּדָקָה הַשְׁקֵט וָבֶטַח עַד עוֹלָם״; זָכָה – ״הֲלֹא פָרֹשׂ לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ״. לֹא זָכָה – ״וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת״.
The Gemara offers a mnemonic device for the following statements extolling the mitzva of charity: Greater; Temple; Moses. Rabbi Elazar says: One who causes others to perform [me’aseh] a meritorious act is greater than one who performs that act himself, as it is stated: “And the causing [ma’aseh] of righteousness shall be peace, and the work of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7), i.e., he will wholeheartedly give charity to the poor. If he does not merit, the latter clause of that verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house,” i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and sustain them against his will.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַקְרֵי יָנוֹקָא, שַׁתָּלָא, טַבָּחָא, וְאוּמָּנָא, וְסוֹפֵר מָתָא – כּוּלָּן כְּמוּתְרִין וְעוֹמְדִין נִינְהוּ. כְּלָלָא דְּמִילְּתָא: כׇּל פְּסֵידָא דְּלָא הָדַר – מוּתְרֶה וְעוֹמֵד הוּא.
And Rava says: With regard to a teacher of children, a professional tree planter, a butcher, a bloodletter, and a town scribe, all these are considered forewarned. In other words, they need not be exhorted to perform their jobs correctly, as if they err in the performance of their duties they can be dismissed immediately. The principle of the matter is: With regard to any case where loss is irreversible, the individual is considered forewarned.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּחְכִּים – יַדְרִים, וְשֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר – יַצְפִּין, וְסִימָנָיךְ: שֻׁלְחָן בַּצָּפוֹן וּמְנוֹרָה בַּדָּרוֹם. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יַדְרִים, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁמִּתְחַכֵּם מִתְעַשֵּׁר – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֹרֶךְ יָמִים בִּימִינָהּ, בִּשְׂמֹאלָהּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד״.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who wishes to become wise should face south, and one who wishes to become wealthy should face north. And your mnemonic for this is that in the Temple the Table, which symbolized blessing and abundance, was in the north, and the Candelabrum, which symbolized the light of wisdom, was in the south of the Sanctuary. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One should always face south, as once he becomes wise he will subsequently also become wealthy, as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Length of days is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor” (Proverbs 3:16).
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרַבִּי בְּנָאָה: חָלוּק שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ נִרְאֶה מִתַּחְתָּיו. טַלִּית שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חֲלוּקוֹ נִרְאֶה מִתַּחְתָּיו טֶפַח. שֻׁלְחָן שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – כֵּיצַד? שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי גְּדִיל, וּשְׁלִישׁ גְּלַאי – וְעָלָיו קְעָרוֹת וְיָרָק. וְטַבַּעְתּוֹ מִבַּחוּץ.
§ The Gemara quotes additional matters that Rabbi Yoḥanan learned from Rabbi Bena’a. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Bena’a: How should the garment of a Torah scholar worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that his flesh is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the cloak of a Torah scholar be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that a handbreadth of his garment worn under his clothes is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the table of a Torah scholar appear? He replied: Two-thirds of the table is covered with a cloth, and one-third is uncovered, and upon that third are dishes and vegetables. And its ring, used to hang the table, should be positioned on the outside, not on the side that faces the one who is eating.
וְשֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ – דּוֹמֶה
The Gemara continues: All of the above is referring to the table of a Torah scholar, but the table of an ignoramus is similar
לִמְדוּרָה, וּקְדֵרוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ.
to a bonfire, where the fire is in the center and pots surround it. Similarly, the table of an ignoramus is arranged with the food in the center and is surrounded by plates.
מִטָּה שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים – כֵּיצַד? כֹּל שֶׁאֵין תַּחְתֶּיהָ אֶלָּא סַנְדָּלִין בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, וּמִנְעָלִין בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. וְשֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ – דּוֹמָה לְאוֹצָר בָּלוּס.
Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the bed of Torah scholars be kept? He replied: It is acceptable as long as there is nothing except sandals beneath it during the summer, and shoes beneath it during the rainy season, i.e., winter. And the bed of an ignoramus is similar to a cluttered [balus] storehouse, as he keeps a wide array of items beneath it.
מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי סְבַר וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי סְבַר? מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבַר: נִיחָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דְּיָתְבִי בְּטוּלֵּיהּ. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא דְּקָא מְעַכְּבִי, שַׁדַּר קַצְיֵיהּ. וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: זִיל קוֹץ דִּידָךְ, וַהֲדַר אֶקּוֹץ דִּידִי! מִשּׁוּם דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״ – קְשׁוֹט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשׁוֹט אֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: “Gather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁחָרַב הַבַּיִת בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, רַבּוּ פְּרוּשִׁין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן. נִטְפַּל לָהֶן רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לָהֶן: בָּנַי, מִפְּנֵי מָה אִי אַתֶּם אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר וְאֵין אַתֶּם שׁוֹתִין יַיִן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נֹאכַל בָּשָׂר – שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ מַקְרִיבִין עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְעַכְשָׁיו בָּטֵל? נִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן – שֶׁמְּנַסְּכִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְעַכְשָׁיו בָּטֵל?
§ Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist?
אָמַר לָהֶם: אִם כֵּן, לֶחֶם לֹא נֹאכַל – שֶׁכְּבָר בָּטְלוּ מְנָחוֹת! אֶפְשָׁר בְּפֵירוֹת. פֵּירוֹת לֹא נֹאכַל – שֶׁכְּבָר בָּטְלוּ בִּכּוּרִים! אֶפְשָׁר בְּפֵירוֹת אֲחֵרִים. מַיִם לֹא נִשְׁתֶּה – שֶׁכְּבָר בָּטֵל נִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם! שָׁתְקוּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water.
אָמַר לָהֶן: בָּנַי, בּוֹאוּ וְאוֹמַר לָכֶם: שֶׁלֹּא לְהִתְאַבֵּל כׇּל עִיקָּר אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁכְּבָר נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵרָה; וּלְהִתְאַבֵּל יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי אִי אֶפְשָׁר – שֶׁאֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב צִבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ – דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּמְּאֵרָה אַתֶּם נֵאָרִים, וְאֹתִי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים; הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״ –
Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation.
אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: סָד אָדָם אֶת בֵּיתוֹ בְּסִיד, וּמְשַׁיֵּיר בּוֹ דָּבָר מוּעָט; וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּנֶגֶד הַפֶּתַח.
Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דִּמְזַבֵּן אַרְעָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, צָרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב לֵיהּ: ״קְנִי לָךְ דִּיקְלִין וְתָאלִין וְהוּצִין וְצִיצִין״. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי לָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי – קְנֵי, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי – שׁוּפְרָא דִשְׁטָרָא הוּא.
§ Rabbi Yehuda said: One who sells land to another must write for him the following in the bill of sale: Acquire for yourself the palm trees and the dates and the branches and the seedlings. And even if he did not write this for him the buyer would still acquire all of these entities, as demonstrated by the mishna that it is only a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk that are excluded from the sale of a field. Even so, it is an enhancement of the bill of sale that he write all of the details of the transaction so that there be no possible room for disagreement.
״וְלֶהָבָה מִקִּרְיַת סִיחֹן״ – מִקִּרְיַת צַדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ ״שִׂיחִין״. ״אָכְלָה עָר מוֹאָב״ – זֶה הַמְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר יִצְרוֹ, כְּעַיִר זֶה שֶׁמְּהַלֵּךְ אַחַר סִיחָה נָאָה. ״בַּעֲלֵי בָּמוֹת אַרְנֹן״ – אֵלּוּ גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ, דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם.
A similar interpretation applies to the continuation of the verse: “A flame from the city of Sihon”; this means that a flame will come from the city of righteous people, who are called trees [siḥin]. “It has devoured Ar of Moab”; this is referring to one who follows after his inclination like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk. “The lords of the high places of Arnon”; this is referring to the arrogant. As the Master says: Every person who has arrogance in him will fall into Gehenna.
״וַנִּירָם״ – אָמַר רָשָׁע: אֵין רָם, ״אָבַד חֶשְׁבּוֹן״ – אָבַד חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם; ״עַד דִּיבֹן״ – אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא דִּין, ״וַנַּשִּׁים
The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: “We have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). “Vanniram”; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. “Heshbon is perished” means: The account [ḥeshbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one’s actions. “Even until Dibon [divon]”; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. “And we have laid waste
עַד נֹפַח״ – עַד שֶׁתָּבֹא אֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נִיפּוּחַ, ״עַד מֵידְבָא״ – עַד שֶׁתַּדְאִיב נִשְׁמָתָן. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַד דְּעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי.
even until Nophah,” meaning until the fire comes that does not require fanning [nippuaḥ], i.e., the fire of Gehenna, which will consume them. “Until Medeba [Medeva]”; this means until their souls are pained [tadiv]. And some say an alternative explanation: It means until God does what He wishes [mai deva’ei] with them and punishes them as they deserve.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי [אֶת] פָּנַי בָּהֶם, מֵהָאֵשׁ יָצָאוּ וְהָאֵשׁ תֹּאכְלֵם״.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who separates himself from matters of Torah, a fire consumes him, as it is stated: “And I will set My face against them; out of the fire they come forth, and the fire shall devour them” (Ezekiel 15:7). The Torah is likened to fire in the verse: “Is not My word like fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29). The verse in Ezekiel teaches: “Out of the fire they come forth,” referring to those who separate themselves from the fire of Torah; “and the fire shall devour them,” i.e., they are consumed by the fire of Gehenna.
אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מַעֲשֶׂה עָדִיף.
The Gemara answers: Even so, it is preferable to cite the incident in Tzalmon as proof. Whenever possible, it is preferable to provide support for an opinion by means of a practical ruling, as it demonstrates that the Sages took action in accordance with that opinion and did not merely teach it as halakha in theory.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹצְרֵי פֵירוֹת, וּמַלְוֵי בְּרִבִּית, וּמַקְטִינֵי אֵיפָה, וּמַפְקִיעֵי שְׁעָרִים – עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״לֵאמֹר מָתַי יַעֲבֹר הַחֹדֶשׁ וְנַשְׁבִּירָה שֶּׁבֶר, וְהַשַּׁבָּת וְנִפְתְּחָה בָּר, לְהַקְטִין אֵיפָה וּלְהַגְדִּיל שֶׁקֶל, וּלְעַוֵּת מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה״. וּכְתִיב: ״נִשְׁבַּע ה׳ בִּגְאוֹן יַעֲקֹב, אִם אֶשְׁכַּח לָנֶצַח כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״.
The Sages taught: Hoarders of produce, who drive up prices by causing a shortage of available goods, and usurers, and those sellers who falsely reduce their measures, and those who raise market prices by selling for more than the accepted price, about them the verse states: “You that would swallow the needy and destroy the poor of the land, saying: When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell produce? And the Shabbat, that we may set forth grain? Making the measure small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit” (Amos 8:4–5). And it is written: “The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their works” (Amos 8:7).
אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל מְזַבֵּין לְהוּ לְפֵירֵי בְּתַרְעָא חָרְפָא, כְּתַרְעָא חָרְפָא. שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ, מַשְׁהֵי לְפֵירֵי, וּמְזַבֵּין לְהוּ בְּתַרְעָא אַפְלָא – כְּתַרְעָא חָרְפָא. שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: טָבָא דְּאַבָּא מִדִּבְרָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? תַּרְעָא דְּרָוַוח – רָוַוח.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel’s father would sell produce during the period of the early market price, when produce is cheap, for the early market price. His son Shmuel acted differently, and would keep the produce and sell it during the period of the late market price, when produce is expensive, for the early market price. They sent a message from there, Eretz Yisrael: The practice of the father is better than that of the son. What is the reason for this? A market price that has been eased and starts out low will remain eased, with little increase over the course of the year. Therefore, one who makes produce available at the beginning of the season, like Shmuel’s father, aids people during the entire year. By contrast, a market price that starts out high, because people are not making their produce available at the market, is not easily lowered.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַתְרִיעִין עַל פְּרַקְמַטְיָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.
§ Apropos price fluctuations, the Gemara cites a baraita. The Sages taught: A community sounds the alarm and gathers in public prayer for merchandise [perakmatya] whose price has dropped. And even on Shabbat it is permitted to cry and plead, even though one may not pray for his personal needs on Shabbat, as this hardship affects the entire public.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּגוֹן כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן בְּבָבֶל, וְיַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וְהוּא דְּזָל וְקָם עַשְׂרָה בְּשִׁיתָּא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita is referring specifically to merchandise that serves as the basis of the local economy, such as linen garments in Babylonia, and wine and oil in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef said: And that halakha, that public prayer is recited even on Shabbat, applies only when the merchandise was reduced in price and stood at such prices that goods that had been worth ten are currently selling for six.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ, וּדְמֵי בּוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִנְהָג גָּדוֹל הָיָה בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם – הַמּוֹסֵר סְעוּדָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְקִלְקְלָהּ; נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי בׇשְׁתּוֹ וּדְמֵי בּוֹשֶׁת אוֹרְחָיו.
The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker’s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף – דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: חַמְרָא – מַזָּלָא דְמָרֵיהּ גָּרֵים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַף כִּי הַיַּיִן בֹּגֵד, גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְגוֹ׳״
And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, disagrees with the opinion of Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: With regard to wine, it is the owner’s poor fortune that causes the wine to go sour, as it is stated: “And moreover, wine is a treacherous dealer; the haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5), which is interpreted to mean that the wine of a haughty man will betray him, as it will sour as a punishment for his arrogance. Accordingly, since the wine soured after the buyer purchased it, he cannot place the blame upon the seller.
אָמַר רַב מָרִי: הַאי מַאן דִּיהִיר – אֲפִילּוּ אַאִינָשֵׁי בֵיתֵיהּ לָא מִיקַּבַּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״ – מַאי ״וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״? בַּנָּוֶה שֶׁלּוֹ.
The Gemara offers additional homiletic interpretations of the verse just cited. Rav Mari said: One who is haughty is not accepted even by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5). What does the phrase “abides [yinveh] not” mean? It means that even in his abode [naveh], he is not accepted.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמִּתְגָּאֶה בְּטַלִּית שֶׁל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, וְאֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״אֶל נְוֵה קׇדְשֶׁךָ״.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who glorifies himself by wearing a garment of the style worn by a Torah scholar, but in reality he is not a Torah scholar, he will not be brought within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to by the fact that it is written in the verse here: “Abides [yinveh] not,” and the meaning of the word yinveh may be derived from that which is written in a verse there: “To Your holy habitation [neveh]” (Exodus 15:13).
כְּדִכְתִיב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא: ״הַכֹּל שָׁקַלְתִּי בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם, וְלֹא מָצָאתִי קַל מִסּוּבִּין; וְקַל מִסּוּבִּין – חָתָן הַדָּר בְּבֵית חָמִיו; וְקַל מֵחָתָן – אוֹרֵחַ מַכְנִיס אוֹרֵחַ; וְקַל מֵאוֹרֵחַ – מֵשִׁיב דָּבָר בְּטֶרֶם יִשְׁמָע – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵשִׁיב דָּבָר בְּטֶרֶם יִשְׁמָע, אִוֶּלֶת הִיא לוֹ, וּכְלִמָּה.
Support for this is as it is written in the book of ben Sira: I have weighed everything in the pan of a balance scale and I have not found anything inferior to bran; but inferior to bran is a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house; and inferior to a son-in-law is a guest who brings in a guest; and inferior to a guest is one who answers a matter before he listens. As it is stated: “He that gives an answer before he listens, it is folly for him and a disgrace” (Proverbs 18:13).
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יִדְבַּק אָדָם בַּטּוֹבִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי מֹשֶׁה שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִתְרוֹ – יָצָא מִמֶּנּוּ יְהוֹנָתָן; אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת עַמִּינָדָב – יָצָא מִמֶּנּוּ פִּנְחָס.
§ In connection with the story of Jonathan, son of Manasseh, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always cleave to good people, meaning one should marry a woman from a good family, as this is beneficial for the offspring of that marriage. As in the case of Moses, who married a daughter of Yitro, who was a priest of idolatry, Jonathan, who was also a priest of idolatry, descended from him, while in the case of Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, who was of distinguished lineage in the tribe of Judah, Pinehas descended from him.
״וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁמָּה, וַיֹּאמֶר: מִי הֱבִיאֲךָ הֲלֹם, וּמָה אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה בָּזֶה, וּמַה לְּךָ פֹה?״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לָאו מִמֹּשֶׁה קָא אָתֵית, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״אַל תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם״? לָאו מִמֹּשֶׁה קָא אָתֵית, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״מַה זֶּה בְּיָדְךָ״? לָאו מִמֹּשֶׁה קָא אָתֵית, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי״? תֵּעָשֶׂה כּוֹמֶר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה?!
In connection with the Gemara’s mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah’s house, the verse states: “And they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?” (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “Do not draw close to here [halom]” (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “What [ma] is that in your hand” (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “But as for you, stand here [po] with me” (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?
אָמַר לָהֶן, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית אֲבִי אַבָּא: לְעוֹלָם יַשְׂכִּיר אָדָם עַצְמוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאַל יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת.
Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.
וְהוּא סָבַר – לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מַמָּשׁ; וְלָא הִיא, אֶלָּא ״עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״ – עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁזָּרָה לוֹ, כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: נְטוֹשׁ נְבֵילְתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא וּשְׁקוֹל אַגְרָא, וְלָא תֵּימָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּא אֲנָא וְזִילָא בִּי מִילְּתָא.
The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוֹתֵב אֶת נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת בָּנָיו – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֶלָּא אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם לֹא הָיוּ בָּנָיו נוֹהֲגִים כַּשּׁוּרָה – זָכוּר לַטּוֹב.
MISHNA: With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, לָא תְּיהַוֵּי בֵּי עַבּוֹרֵי אַחְסָנְתָּא; וַאֲפִילּוּ מִבְּרָא בִּישָׁא לִבְרָא טָבָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן מִבְּרָא לְבַרְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.
בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִיכָּא לָשׁוֹן הָרָע; אֶלָּא הָכָא, מַאי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע אִיכָּא? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב דִּימִי – דְּתָנֵי רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יְסַפֵּר אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ טוֹבָתוֹ בָּא לִידֵי רָעָתוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת אֵין אָדָם נִיצּוֹל מֵהֶן בְּכׇל יוֹם – הִרְהוּר עֲבֵירָה, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. לָשׁוֹן הָרָע סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?!
Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?
אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע.
The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint, i.e., words with a bare trace, of malicious speech.
וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי ״פּוֹטֵר מַיִם רֵאשִׁית מָדוֹן״, מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? כִּדְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֵין תְּחִילַּת דִּינוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נִידּוֹן אֶלָּא עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״פּוֹטֵר מַיִם רֵאשִׁית מָדוֹן״. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הַאי תִּיגְרָא דָּמְיָא לְצִינּוֹרָא דְּבִידְקָא (דְּמַיָּא), כֵּיוָן דְּרָוַוח – רָוַוח.
And with regard to those tanna’im who did not interpret the verse: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water” (Proverbs 17:14), with regard to compromise, what do they derive from this verse? They understand the verse in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: The beginning of a person’s judgment after he dies is that he is judged only concerning matters of Torah, as it is stated: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water.” Based on this verse, Rav Huna says: This quarrel between people is comparable to a split in a hose caused by a burst of water, emptying into a field; once the split in the hose widens, it widens even more and can no longer be repaired. To save the field, the hose must be repaired as soon as it splits. The same is true with regard to a quarrel; it must be stopped as soon as it begins.
אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא אָמַר: דָּמֵי לְגוּדָּא דְּגַמְלָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָם – קָם.
Abaye the Elder makes a similar point with a different metaphor, and says: A quarrel is comparable to a board in a wooden bridge. Once it has stood in its place and been stabilized, it continues to stand and becomes ever more rigid and stable. Consequently, the best time to address and end the dispute is at the very beginning.
אֱמֶת מָמוֹן יִרְאָה סִימָן. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל דַּיָּין שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִיתּוֹ, מַשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט״. וְכׇל דַּיָּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִיתּוֹ, גּוֹרֵם לִשְׁכִינָה שֶׁתִּסְתַּלֵּק מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִשֹּׁד עֲנִיִּים מֵאַנְקַת אֶבְיוֹנִים עַתָּה אָקוּם יֹאמַר ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device indicating the following series of statements about judges and their functions: Emet mamon yireh. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Any judge who judges a judgment according to absolute truth [emet] causes the Divine Presence to rest among Israel, as it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1), indicating that the Divine Presence is in the midst of the court. And every judge who does not judge a judgment according to absolute truth causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel, as it is stated: “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, says the Lord” (Psalms 12:6). God will arise and leave the people as a result of oppression.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל דַּיָּין שֶׁנּוֹטֵל מִזֶּה וְנוֹתֵן לְזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ נַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּגְזׇל דַּל כִּי דַּל הוּא וְאַל תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר כִּי ה׳ יָרִיב רִיבָם וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ״.
And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to any judge who takes disputed property or money [mamon] from this litigant and gives it to that other litigant unlawfully, the Holy One, Blessed be He, takes his soul from him as punishment for his corruption, as it is stated: “Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause and despoil of life those who despoil them” (Proverbs 22:22–23). God cautions that He will take the life of one who steals from the poor at the gate, meaning in the courtroom, as the city gate was the traditional site of the community’s court.
גְּמָ׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן. פְּשִׁיטָא! דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִיהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיֵין? וְהָכְתִיב ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the High Priest judges others as a member of a court. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Why would one think that he would be unfit to serve as a judge? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention the latter clause: And others judge him, and therefore, it taught the related halakha with it. The Gemara objects: This is also obvious; if others do not judge him, how can he judge others? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1); and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others.
מֶלֶךְ לֹא דָּן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּית דָּוִד כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ דִּינוּ לַבֹּקֶר מִשְׁפָּט״. וְאִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיְינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged.
לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין וְכוּ׳. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ! מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.
The mishna teaches that the king does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and Rabbi Yehuda says that he may do so if he wishes. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says that with regard to a Nasi who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is relinquished, nevertheless, with regard to a king who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning that his fear should be upon you. The preservation of a king’s honor is mandated by the Torah. How could Rabbi Yehuda allow him to waive it? The Gemara answers: A mitzva is different; a king is not disgraced if he relinquishes his honor to perform a mitzva.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַמְלַמֵּד בֶּן חֲבֵירוֹ תּוֹרָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״. לוֹמַר לָךְ: אַהֲרֹן יָלַד וּמֹשֶׁה לִימֵּד, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches another person’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sired him, as it is stated: “Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses” (Numbers 3:1), and it is written immediately afterward: “And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadav the firstborn and Avihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar” (Numbers 3:2), but it does not mention the names of Moses’ children. This serves to say to you that Aaron sired his children, but Moses taught them Torah. Therefore, the children were also called by his name.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: הָרוֹאֶה אֶת רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, כְּאִילּוּ עוֹקֵר הָרִים וְטוֹחֲנָן זֶה בָּזֶה.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was it in character for Reish Lakish to speak of Rabbi Meir with such reverence when disagreeing with his ruling? But doesn’t Ulla say: When one sees Reish Lakish studying Torah in the study hall it is as though he is uprooting mountains and grinding them into each other? Reish Lakish was evidently very sharp in his analyses.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וַהֲלֹא כׇּל הָרוֹאֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, כְּאִילּוּ עוֹקֵר הָרֵי הָרִים וְטוֹחֲנָן זֶה בָּזֶה!
Ravina said in response: What is the difficulty? But is it not so that when anyone sees Rabbi Meir studying Torah in the study hall, it is as though he is uprooting the highest of mountains and grinding them into each other? Rabbi Meir was a greater scholar than Reish Lakish, so it was fitting for Reish Lakish to speak of him with reverence.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: בָּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה מְחַבְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
The Gemara answers: The question: Is that so, was not stated to raise a difficulty; rather, this is what he is saying, i.e., this is what the Gemara was noting: Come and see how much the Sages love each other. Although Reish Lakish was himself very sharp and a great Torah scholar, he spoke of Rabbi Meir with reverence.
כִּי הָא דְּיָתֵיב רַבִּי וְקָאָמַר: אָסוּר לְהַטְמִין אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַבָּא הִתִּיר לְהַטְמִין אֶת הַצּוֹנֵן. אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּבָר הוֹרָה זָקֵן.
The Gemara cites another example of Torah scholars who spoke of each other with reverence. It is like that incident where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: It is prohibited to insulate cold food on Shabbat to keep it cold, as this may lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat to keep it hot. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: My father ruled that it is permitted to insulate cold food on Shabbat. There is no concern that this will lead one to insulate hot food on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi subsequently said to those who asked him about this issue: I retract my previous statement; the elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already issued a ruling on this topic, and I defer to his ruling.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה מְחַבְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קַיָּים הָיָה, כָּפוּף וְיוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבִּי. דְּהָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹם אֲבוֹתָיו הֲוָה, וְהָיָה כָּפוּף וְיוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, וְקָא אָמַר: כְּבָר הוֹרָה זָקֵן.
Rav Pappa says: Come and see how much they loved each other. As, had Rabbi Yosei still been alive, he would have been subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student, as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was his fathers’ replacement, i.e., he was as great a Torah scholar as his forebears, and he was subordinate to and sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as his student. And, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The elder has already issued a ruling on this topic, and he deferred to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין: הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְּרִיבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית.
MISHNA: And these on the following list are the ones who are disqualified by the Sages from bearing witness due to their unseemly behavior, as they are considered wicked individuals guilty of monetary transgressions: One who plays with dice [bekubbiyya] for money, and one who lends money with interest, and those who fly pigeons, and merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אוּמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוּמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הוּא – כְּשֵׁרִין.
Rabbi Yehuda said: When are the people listed above disqualified from bearing witness? It is when they have no occupation but this one. But if they have an occupation other than this one, although they also make money by these inappropriate means, they are fit to bear witness.
גְּמָ׳ מְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא, מַאי קָא עָבֵיד? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה אַסְמַכְתָּא, וְאַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא.
GEMARA: With regard to one who plays with dice for money, what is he doing that disqualifies him from bearing witness? Rami bar Ḥama says: He is disqualified because gambling is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta], as one who gambles does not have conclusive consent to pay when he loses since he plays under the assumption that he will win. And as an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, the one who wins takes money that is not legally his, and is considered a robber.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: כֹּל כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא לָאו אַסְמַכְתָּא הִיא, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֲסוּקִין בְּיִישּׁוּבוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם.
Rav Sheshet says: Any case like this is not an asmakhta. In a game of dice both sides realize that they might lose, and consent at the outset to pay if that happens. Rather, those who play dice are disqualified because they are not involved in settling the world, i.e., in productive occupations that demand hard work. Since they do not realize the effort required of most people to earn a living they might not be scrupulous about other people’s money, and their testimony cannot be relied upon.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּגְמַר אוּמָּנוּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the explanations of Rami bar Ḥama and Rav Sheshet? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where the dice player learns another occupation, and is involved in that occupation as well. According to Rav Sheshet, since he has a productive occupation he is fit to bear witness. According to Rami bar Ḥama, since he is considered a robber, as the money he gains from gambling is not legally his, he is disqualified.
מַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית. אָמַר רָבָא: לָוָה בְּרִבִּית – פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: מַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית? מִלְוָה הַבָּאָה בְּרִבִּית.
§ The mishna teaches that one who lends money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. Rava says: One who borrows money with interest is disqualified from bearing witness. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that specifically one who lends money with interest is disqualified? The Gemara answers: The reference in the mishna is to a loan that comes with interest, and is teaching that all those who participate in the loan are disqualified.
וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, מַאי מַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: ״אִי תִּקְדְּמֵיהּ יוֹנָךְ לְיוֹן״. רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: ״אָרָא״.
§ Among the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness the mishna teaches: And those who fly pigeons. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Those who fly pigeons? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages explained that these are people who gamble on pigeon races, i.e., one says to another: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money. Rabbi Ḥama bar Oshaya says: It is referring to an ara, i.e., one who trains his pigeons to bring him pigeons from the property of others.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקוּבְיָא – אֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְשַׂחֲקִים בִּפְסֵיפָסִים. וְלֹא בִּפְסֵיפָסִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִים וּקְלִיפֵּי רִימּוֹנִים.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.
וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁבְּרוּ אֶת פְּסֵיפָסֵיהֶן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחִנָּם לָא עָבְדִי.
And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.
מַלְוֶה בְּרִיבִּית: אֶחָד הַמַּלְוֶה וְאֶחָד הַלֹּוֶה. וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיְּקָרְעוּ אֶת שְׁטָרֵיהֶן, וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגוֹי לָא מוֹזְפִי.
The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.
וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים – אֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּמְרִין אֶת הַיּוֹנִים. וְלֹא יוֹנִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף. וְאֵימָתַי חֲזָרָתָן? מִשֶּׁיְּשַׁבְּרוּ אֶת פְּגָמֵיהֶן, וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר נָמֵי לָא עָבְדִי.
The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures [pigmeihen] upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.
לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ אִיבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכׇל הַמְקַיֵּים נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ קִיֵּים עוֹלָם מָלֵא.
The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.
וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדוּלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד – כּוּלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כׇּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּיב לוֹמַר: בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם.
And this serves to tell of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, since all humanity descends from one person, each and every person is obligated to say: The world was created for me, as one person can be the source of all humanity, and recognize the significance of his actions.
מָה לָנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ׳״. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמְרוּ: מָה לָנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״בַּאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה״.
Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, וְדַע מָה שֶׁתָּשִׁיב לָאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס נׇכְרִי, אֲבָל אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס יִשְׂרָאֵל – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּפָקַר טְפֵי.
§ We learned in a mishna there (Avot 2:14): Rabbi Eliezer says: Be persistent to learn Torah, and know what to respond to the heretic [la’apikoros]. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This was taught only with regard to a gentile heretic, but not with regard to a Jewish heretic, as one should not respond to him. All the more so, if one does respond he will become more heretical. His heresy is assumed to be intentional, and any attempt to rebut it will only cause him to reinforce his position.
אִין. אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ, לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara answers: Yes, the greatest of the judges must also announce that the court cannot reach a verdict. Being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. Therefore, it is preferable that the greatest of the judges state this conclusion, rather than having one of the more junior judges state it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַזּוֹבֵחַ אֶת יִצְרוֹ וּמִתְוַדֶּה עָלָיו, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ כִּיבְּדוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּשְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים – הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹבֵחַ תּוֹדָה יְכַבְּדָנְנִי״.
§ Apropos the last verse cited in this baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to anyone who slaughters his evil inclination after it has tempted him to sin, if he repents and confesses his sin, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had honored the Holy One, Blessed be He, in two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me [yekhabdaneni]” (Psalms 50:23), which can also be read as: Whoever slaughters his evil inclination and confesses [mitvadeh] honors Me, and the two instances of the letter nun in the word yekhabdaneni allude to the two worlds.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, אָדָם מַקְרִיב עוֹלָה – שְׂכַר עוֹלָה בְּיָדוֹ, מִנְחָה – שְׂכַר מִנְחָה בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שְׁפָלָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ נִשְׁבָּרָה״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִמְאֶסֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּה אֱלֹהִים לֹא תִבְזֶה״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also says: When the Temple is standing, if a person sacrifices a burnt-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a burnt-offering, and if he sacrifices a meal-offering, he has the reward given for bringing a meal-offering. But as for one whose spirit is humble, the verse ascribes him credit for his prayer as though he has sacrificed all the offerings, as it is stated: “The offerings of God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19), which teaches that a broken spirit is equivalent to the offerings to God, in the plural. And moreover, his prayer is not rejected, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “A broken and contrite heart, God, You will not despise.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶמֶשׁ בִּיטַּלְתֶּם תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְעַכְשָׁיו בִּיטַּלְתֶּם תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן בָּאתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַתָּה בָּאתִי״.
The Gemara understands the words of the angel that Joshua encountered as a rebuke for some offense Joshua committed: The angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, in the afternoon, you neglected sacrificing the daily afternoon offering because you were engaged in warfare, and now, when it is dark, you neglected Torah study. Joshua asked him: For which of these sins have you come to reprove me? The angel said to him: “I have now come,” i.e., the fact that I did not come before, but waited until now, when it is dark, indicates that the sin of neglecting Torah study is the more severe one.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִינְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהַקְרָבַת תְּמִידִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״.
Shmuel bar Unya says in the name of Rav: Torah study is greater than the sacrificing of the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have now come,” demonstrating that the neglect of Torah study is a more serious offense than the neglect of the daily offerings.
״הֲיַעֲרֹךְ שׁוּעֲךָ לֹא בְצָר״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם תְּפִלָּה לַצָּרָה, שֶׁאִילְמָלֵא לֹא הִקְדִּים אַבְרָהָם תְּפִלָּה לַצָּרָה בֵּין בֵּית אֵל וּבֵין הָעַי, לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מִשּׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל הַמְאַמֵּץ עַצְמוֹ בִּתְפִלָּה מִלְּמַטָּה, אֵין לוֹ צָרִים מִלְּמַעְלָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יְבַקֵּשׁ אָדָם רַחֲמִים שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל מְאַמְּצִין אֶת כֹּחוֹ, וְאַל יְהוּ לוֹ צָרִים מִלְּמַעְלָה.
The verse states: “Had you prepared your prayers, before your troubles came” (Job 36:19). Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always offer up prayer before trouble actually arrives, as had the patriarch Abraham not anticipated the trouble at Ai with the prayer he offered between Bethel and Ai, there would have been no remnant or refugee remaining among the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, as Israel suffered a defeat at Ai from which there is ordinarily no recovery. Reish Lakish says: The verse should be understood as follows: Anyone who concentrates himself and his energy in prayer in the world below will have no enemies in Heaven above causing him trouble. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse should be understood in a slightly different manner: A person should always pray for mercy that all heavenly beings should strengthen his power of prayer, and that he should have no enemies causing him trouble in Heaven above.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה. אִי הָכִי, לַיגְבְּהֵיהּ טְפֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּמִינַּוַּל.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned man, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, even though the one being executed is likely to die from a fall from a lesser height, a platform is built that is twice the height of an ordinary person in order to ensure a quick and relatively painless death. The Gemara challenges: If so, they should raise the platform even higher. The Gemara answers: This is not done, because if the condemned man were pushed from a higher platform, he would become seriously disfigured, and this would no longer be considered a compassionate form of death.
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה נִידּוֹן עַל שֵׁם סוֹפוֹ. יָמוּת זַכַּאי וְאַל יָמוּת חַיָּיב, שֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. לַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם.
MISHNA: A stubborn and rebellious son is sentenced to death not because of the severity of the transgression that he already committed but on account of his ultimate end, because a boy of his nature will grow up to lead an immoral life, and it is better that he should die while he is still innocent, before causing excessive harm, and not die after he becomes guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them, because they can no longer sin, and it is also beneficial to the world, which is now rid of those who do it harm. Conversely, the death of the righteous is detrimental to them, as they can no longer engage in the performance of mitzvot, and it is also detrimental to the world, as the righteous are now absent from it.
יַיִן וְשֵׁינָה לָרְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם, וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם.
By way of association, the mishna continues: The wine and sleep of the wicked are beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, as when they are sleeping or under the influence of wine, they do not cause harm to others. And, conversely, the wine and sleep of the righteous are detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, as wine and sleep prevent them from engaging in their good deeds.
פִּיזּוּר לָרְשָׁעִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. כִּנּוּס לָרְשָׁעִים – רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. וְלַצַּדִּיקִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם. שֶׁקֶט לָרְשָׁעִים – רַע לָהֶן וְרַע לָעוֹלָם. לַצַּדִּיקִים – הֲנָאָה לָהֶן וַהֲנָאָה לָעוֹלָם.
The dispersal of the wicked, so that they are not found in close proximity to each other, is beneficial to them, as they are less likely to provoke each other to sin, and it is beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The assembly of the wicked in one place is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the assembly of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִין לְרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְהׇרְגוֹ שֶׁנִּיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ״. וְהָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִין לָרוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ חַיָּה גּוֹרַרְתּוֹ, אוֹ לִסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לְהַצִּילוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ״. אִין, הָכִי נָמֵי.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who pursues another in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved at the cost of the pursuer’s life? The verse states: “You shall not stand idly by the blood of another” (Leviticus 19:16); rather, you must save him from death. The Gemara asks: But does this verse really come to teach us this? This verse is required for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits [listin], is obligated to save him? The Torah states: “You shall not stand idly by the blood of another.” The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that this verse relates to the obligation to save one whose life is in danger.
וְרוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר רוֹדֵף לְהַצִּילוֹ, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – בֵּין שֶׁל רוֹדֵף, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף, בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר. וְלֹא מִן הַדִּין, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, נִמְצָא אֵין לָךְ כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁמַּצִּיל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִיַּד הָרוֹדֵף.
Rava continues: But if one pursuer was pursuing another pursuer in order to save him, i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, and while doing so he broke vessels belonging either to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for them. The Gemara comments: This is not by strict law, as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordinance instituted by the Sages. This is because if you do not say that he is exempt, it will be found that no person will save another from a pursuer, as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: נִימְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ בַּעֲלִיַּת בֵּית נַתְּזָה בְּלוֹד, כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אִם אוֹמְרִין לָאָדָם ״עֲבוֹר וְאַל תֵּהָרֵג״ – יַעֲבוֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג, חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.
§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.
וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָאָדָם ״עֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאַל תֵּהָרֵג״, מִנַּיִן שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד וְאַל יֵהָרֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וָחַי בָּהֶם״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם.
The Gemara asks: And should one not transgress the prohibition of idol worship to save his life? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael said: From where is it derived that if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from where is it derived that he should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: “You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, and he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, but they were not given so that one will die due to their observance.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי״.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance even in public, i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, the verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.
רוֹצֵחַ גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא לַן? סְבָרָא הוּא, דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר לִי מָרֵי דּוּרַאי ״זִיל קַטְלֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, וְאִי לָא קָטֵילְנָא לָךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִקְטְלוּךָ וְלָא תִּיקְטוֹל. מִי יֵימַר דִּדְמָא דִּידָךְ סוּמָּק טְפֵי? דִּילְמָא דְּמָא דְּהוּא גַּבְרָא סוּמָּק טְפֵי.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha with regard to a murderer himself, that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: As when a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man’s blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוָה קַלָּה – יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages taught that one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger only when it is not a time of religious persecution. But in a time of religious persecution, when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, even if they issued a decree about a minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּצִינְעָא, אֲבָל בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוָה קַלָּה – יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even when it is not a time of religious persecution, the Sages said that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger only when he was ordered to do so in private. But if he was ordered to commit a transgression in public, even if they threaten him with death if he does not transgress a minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress.
וְכַמָּה פַּרְהֶסְיָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין פַּרְהֶסְיָא פְּחוּתָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם. פְּשִׁיטָא, יִשְׂרְאֵלִים בָּעֵינַן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: תִּשְׁעָה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי אֶחָד, מַהוּ?
The Gemara asks: And the presence of how many people is required so that it should be deemed a public act? Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An action is not considered a public act if it is performed in the presence of fewer than ten people. The Gemara clarifies this point: It is obvious that we require that these ten people be Jews, as it is written in the verse from which we derive the requirement of ten for the sanctification of God’s name: “And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:32). Rabbi Yirmeya asks: What is the halakha if there were nine Jews and one gentile present?
וְהָא אֶסְתֵּר פַּרְהֶסְיָא הֲוַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֶסְתֵּר קַרְקַע עוֹלָם הָיְתָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t the incident involving Esther, i.e., her cohabitation with Ahasuerus, a public sin? Why then did Esther not surrender her life rather than engage in intercourse? The Gemara answers: Abaye says: Esther was merely like natural ground, i.e., she was a passive participant. The obligation to surrender one’s life rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse applies only to a man who transgresses the prohibition in an active manner. A woman who is passive and merely submits is not required to give up her life so that she not sin.
רָבָא אָמַר: הֲנָאַת עַצְמָן שָׁאנֵי.
Rava says that there is another justification for Esther’s behavior: When gentiles order the transgression of a prohibition not in order to persecute the Jews or to make them abandon their religion, but for their own personal pleasure, it is different. In such a situation there is no obligation to sacrifice one’s life, even when the sin is committed in public.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הָנֵי קְוָואקֵי וְדֵימוֹנִיקֵי הֵיכִי יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ? אֶלָּא הֲנָאַת עַצְמָן שָׁאנֵי. הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲנָאַת עַצְמָן שָׁאנֵי.
Rava explains: As if you do not say so, then how do we give them coal shovels [kevakei vedimonikei]? The Persian priests would take coal shovels from every house, fill them with coals, and use them to heat their temples on their festival days. Although this involved assisting idol worship in public, Jews would not sacrifice their lives in order not to do so. Rather, the reason they cooperated is certainly that a measure enacted for the gentiles’ personal pleasure is different. Here too, concerning Esther, Ahasuerus engaged in intercourse with her for his personal pleasure, and a measure enacted for a gentile’s personal pleasure is different, and there is no obligation to sacrifice one’s life to avoid it.
וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: גּוֹי דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְהַאי יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״קְטוֹל אַסְפַּסְתָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא וּשְׁדִי לְחֵיוָתָא, וְאִי לָא קָטֵילְנָא לָךְ״ – לִיקְטוֹל וְלָא לִקְטְלֵיהּ. ״שְׁדִי לְנַהְרָא״ – לִיקְטְלֵיהּ וְלָא לִיקְטוֹל. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְעַבּוֹרֵי מִילְּתָא קָא בָּעֵי.
The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his own line of reasoning, as Rava says: If a gentile said to a certain Jew: Cut grass [aspasta] on Shabbat and throw it before the cattle, and if you do not do this I will kill you, he should cut the grass and not be killed. But if the gentile said to him: Cut the grass and throw it into the river, he should be killed and not cut the grass. What is the reason for the latter ruling? Because it is clear that the gentile is not seeking his own personal pleasure, but rather he wants to force the Jew to violate his religion.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת, וְהֶעֱלָה לִבּוֹ טִינָא. וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ לָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁתִּבָּעֵל. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יָמוּת וְאַל תִּבָּעֵל לוֹ. תַּעֲמוֹד לְפָנָיו עֲרוּמָּה: יָמוּת וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד לְפָנָיו עֲרוּמָּה. תְּסַפֵּר עִמּוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר: יָמוּת וְלֹא תְּסַפֵּר עִמּוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַגָּדֵר.
§ Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַמַּשִּׂיא אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְזָקֵן, וְהַמַּשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לִבְנוֹ קָטָן, וְהַמַּחְזִיר אֲבֵידָה לְנׇכְרִי – עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת הַצְּמֵאָה. לֹא יֹאבֶה ה׳ סְלֹחַ לוֹ״.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who marries his daughter to an old man, and one who takes a wife for his minor son, and one who returns a lost item to a gentile are all individuals who are the cause of sin. Marriage to an old man or a minor leaves the woman unsatisfied and is apt to lead to licentiousness. One who returns lost property to gentiles adds to the property that they stole from Jews. With regard to each of them the verse states: “Lest there should be among you a man or a woman…whose heart turns away this day from the Lord…saying: I will have peace, even though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, that the quenched shall be added to the thirsty. The Lord will not be willing to pardon him” (Deuteronomy 29:17-19).
מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹהֵב אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, וְהַמְכַבְּדָהּ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ, וְהַמַּדְרִיךְ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו בְּדֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה, וְהַמַּשִּׂיאָן סָמוּךְ לְפִירְקָן – עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְיָדַעְתָּ כִּי שָׁלוֹם אׇהֳלֶךָ וּפָקַדְתָּ נָוְךָ וְלֹא תֶחֱטָא״. סָמוּךְ לְפִירְקָן – שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara raises an objection to one element of the ruling of Rav from a baraita: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who esteems her by giving her clothing and jewelry more than he esteems himself, and one who instructs his sons and daughters to follow an upright path, and who marries them to appropriate spouses adjacent to their reaching puberty, ensures that his home will be devoid of quarrel and sin. Concerning him the verse states: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” (Job 5:24). The baraita indicates that it is a mitzva to marry one’s children to appropriate spouses while they are young, contrary to the statement of Rav that one who takes a wife for his minor son causes sin. The Gemara replies: Adjacent to their reaching puberty is different from marrying her to a minor, as there is no concern that his daughter will sin during the brief period until her husband reaches puberty.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָאוֹהֵב אֶת שְׁכֵינָיו, וְהַמְקָרֵב אֶת קְרוֹבָיו, וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת בַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְהַמַּלְוֶה סֶלַע לְעָנִי בִּשְׁעַת דּוֹחְקוֹ – עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״אָז תִּקְרָא וַה׳ יַעֲנֶה״.
The Sages taught: One who loves his neighbors, and one who brings his relatives close, and one who marries the daughter of his sister, an example of a woman that he knows and likes before taking her as his wife, and one who lends a sela to a poor man at his time of need, when he has no alternative source of funds, with regard to each of them the verse states: “Break your bread for the hungry, and the poor that are cast out bring to your house; when you see the naked, you shall clothe him, and hide not yourself from your own flesh…then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:7–9).
כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר – הָוֵי מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר קַל.
§ The mishna teaches: All those liable to be executed with different court-imposed death penalties who became intermingled are sentenced to the most lenient form of execution. The Gemara noted: Conclude from the mishna that an individual who is forewarned for a severe matter is forewarned for a lesser matter. If one is forewarned that if he violates a certain prohibition then he is liable to be stoned, while in fact, he is liable to be executed with a less severe form of execution, the forewarning is effective and he is executed with the less severe form of execution. That is the reason for the halakha in the mishna that even those liable to be executed with a more severe form of execution are executed with the less severe form of execution.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא,
When this narrative was heard, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Long-toothed one:
לָא תֵּימָא לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּךְ הָכִי, דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִיו עוֹבֵר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, עָבַרְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, כָּךְ כְּתִיב בַּתּוֹרָה״. סוֹף סוֹף הַיְינוּ הָךְ! אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אַבָּא, מִקְרָא כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה כָּךְ הוּא״.
Do not speak to your father in that manner, where you tell him directly that he is mistaken. Rather, raise the matter in a circumspect manner, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s father was violating Torah matters he should not say to him: Father, you violated Torah matters. Rather, he should say to him: Father, it is written so in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, isn’t this formulation identical to that previous formulation? In both cases he embarrasses his father. Rather, say to him: Father, there is a verse written in the Torah and this is what it says. Tell him the halakha or the verse in a way in which it is not obvious that it relates to the action that his father performed.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: אֵיזֶהוּ בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא? עַנְוְותָן וּשְׁפַל בֶּרֶךְ, שָׁיֵיף עָיֵיל שָׁיֵיף וְנָפֵיק, וְגָרֵיס בְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תְּדִירָא, וְלָא מַחְזֵיק טֵיבוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. יְהַבוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן עֵינַיְיהוּ בְּרַב עוּלָּא בַּר אַבָּא.
Apropos the appointment of judges, the Gemara relates that they sent the following statement from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael: Who is the one destined to receive a place in the World-to-Come? It is one who is modest and humble, who bows and enters and bows and exits, and who studies Torah regularly, and who does not take credit for himself. The Sages cast their eyes on Rav Ulla bar Abba, as they perceived him as the embodiment of all these characteristics.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הֲלָכָה מִפִּי תַלְמִיד, כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזְלוֹ מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבוֹתָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב״. מוֹרָשָׁה הִיא לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הֲלָכָה מִפִּי תַּלְמִיד, אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּרִין שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִמָּן מְקַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֹנֵעַ בָּר
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who withholds halakha from being studied by the mouth of a student who seeks to study Torah, it is as though he robs him of the inheritance of his ancestors, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that the Torah is an inheritance for all of the Jewish people from the six days of Creation. Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: With regard to anyone who withholds halakha from being studied by the mouth of a student who seeks to study Torah, even fetuses in their mother’s womb curse him, as it is stated: “He who withholds bar,
יִקְּבֻהוּ לְאוֹם״, וְאֵין לְאוֹם אֶלָּא עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְאֹם מִלְּאֹם יֶאֱמָץ״. וְאֵין קַבֹּה אֶלָּא קְלָלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל״. וְאֵין בַּר אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נַשְּׁקוּ בַר פֶּן יֶאֱנַף״.
the people [leom] shall curse him [yikkevuhu], but blessing shall be upon the head of one who provides” (Proverbs 11:26). And the term leom is referring to nothing other than fetuses, as it is stated: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your bowels; and the one leom shall overcome the other leom” (Genesis 25:23). And kabbo is referring to nothing other than curse, as it is stated in the statement of Balaam: “How can I curse one who is not cursed [kabbo] by God?” (Numbers 23:8). And bar is referring to nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “Pay homage to bar lest He be angry” (Psalms 2:12), i.e., observe the Torah to avoid God’s wrath.
וְאִם לִמְּדוֹ, מָה שְׂכָרוֹ? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זוֹכֶה לִבְרָכוֹת כְּיוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְרָכָה לְרֹאשׁ מַשְׁבִּיר״. וְאֵין מַשְׁבִּיר אֶלָּא יוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיוֹסֵף הוּא [הַשַּׁלִּיט עַל הָאָרֶץ הוּא] הַמַּשְׁבִּיר לְכׇל עַם הָאָרֶץ״.
And if one teaches the student halakha rather than withholding it, what is his reward? Rava says that Rav Sheshet says: He is privileged to receive blessings like Joseph, as it is stated at the end of that verse: “But blessing shall be upon the head of one who provides [mashbir]” (Proverbs 11:26). And mashbir is referring to no one other than Joseph, as it is stated: “And Joseph was the governor of the land, and he was the provider [hamashbir] to all the people of the land” (Genesis 42:6).
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כׇּל הַמְלַמֵּד תּוֹרָה בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, זוֹכֶה וּמְלַמְּדָהּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמַרְוֶה גַּם הוּא יוֹרֶה״.
Rav Sheshet says: Anyone who teaches Torah in this world is privileged and teaches it in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And he who satisfies abundantly [umarveh] shall be satisfied himself [yoreh]” (Proverbs 11:25). Rav Sheshet interprets the verse homiletically: By transposing the letters of the word marveh: Mem, reish, vav, heh, one arrives at the word moreh, meaning teaches. The verse means that one who teaches [moreh] will teach [yoreh] in the future as well.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל פַּרְנָס שֶׁמַּנְהִיג אֶת הַצִּבּוּר בְּנַחַת, זוֹכֶה וּמַנְהִיגָם לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מְרַחֲמָם יְנַהֲגֵם וְעַל מַבּוּעֵי מַיִם יְנַהֲלֵם״.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: Any communal leader who leads the community calmly, without anger and honestly, is privileged and leads them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “For he that has compassion upon them will lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them” (Isaiah 49:10). Just as he led them in this world, so too will he guide them in the World-to-Come.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: גְּדוֹלָה דֵּעָה, שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי אֵל דֵּעוֹת ה׳״.
The Gemara proceeds to cite additional statements of Rabbi Elazar relating to recommended conduct. And Rabbi Elazar says: Great is knowledge, as it was placed between two letters, two names of God, as it is stated: “For a God of knowledge is the Lord” (I Samuel 2:3).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דֵּעָה, כְּאִילּוּ נִבְנָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיָמָיו, שֶׁזֶּה נִיתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, וְזֶה נִיתַּן בֵּין שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת.
And Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to any person in whom there is knowledge, it is as though the Temple was built in his days, as this, knowledge, was placed between two letters and that, the Temple, was placed between two letters.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה נִשְׁמָעִים בּוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֹשֶׁךְ טָמוּן לִצְפּוּנָיו תְּאׇכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לֹא נֻפָּח יֵרַע שָׂרִיד בְּאׇהֳלוֹ״. אֵין שָׂרִיד אֶלָּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר ה׳ קֹרֵא״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to any house in which there are no matters of Torah heard at night, the fire of Gehenna consumes it, as it is stated: “All darkness is laid up for his treasures, a fire not fanned shall consume him; it shall go ill with a sarid in his tent” (Job 20:26). Sarid is referring to no one but a Torah scholar, as it is stated: “And among the seridim, those whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 3:5). A house that is dark at night and in which no Torah is heard will be consumed by a fire that does not require fanning with a bellows, the fire of Gehenna.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁיֵּיר פַּת עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ, אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימַן בְּרָכָה לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵין שָׂרִיד לְאׇכְלוֹ עַל כֵּן לֹא יָחִיל טוּבוֹ״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who does not leave bread on his table at the end of his meal indicating his gratitude to God for providing him more than enough never sees a sign of blessing, as it is stated: “None of his food shall remain; therefore his prosperity shall not endure.”
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמְשַׁיַּיר פְּתִיתִים עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָעֹרְכִים לַגַּד שֻׁלְחָן וְהַמְמַלְאִים לַמְנִי מִמְסָךְ״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁלֵימָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, הָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁלֵימָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say: With regard to anyone who leaves pieces of bread on his table, it is as if he worships idols, as it is stated: “Who prepare a table for Fortune [Gad] and offer blended wine for Destiny” (Isaiah 65:11). The people would leave pieces of bread on the table as an offering to the constellation Gad, which they believed influences the fortune of the home. This practice was a form of idol worship. The Gemara answers: This apparent contradiction is not difficult: This case, where leaving pieces of bread is a form of idol worship, applies when there is a whole loaf together with the pieces, as the addition of the pieces is clearly for idol worship; that case, where failure to leave bread on the table is criticized, applies when there is no whole loaf together with the pieces.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמַּחְלִיף בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הֶבֶל הֵמָּה מַעֲשֵׂה תַּעְתֻּעִים״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who amends the truth in his speech, it is as though he worships idols. As, it is written here, in the verse where Jacob sought to resist taking his father’s blessing from Esau: “And I shall seem to him a deceiver [metate’a]” (Genesis 27:12), and it is written there with regard to idol worship: “They are vanity, the work of deception [tatuim]” (Jeremiah 10:15).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם הָוֵי קָבֵל וְקַיָּים. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, בַּיִת אָפֵל אֵין פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ חַלּוֹנוֹת לִרְאוֹת נִגְעוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
And Rabbi Elazar says: Forever be in the dark, i.e., anonymous, and you will continue to exist. Rabbi Zeira says: We learn a similar idea in a mishna as well (Nega’im 2:3): In a dark house, one does not open windows to illuminate it in order to see whether or not its blemish is leprosy, and the house retains the presumptive status of ritual purity. Those matters that are obscured are allowed to continue. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from that mishna that this is so.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה הַמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה. ״וְאֶת מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר״ – זֶה הַמֵּפֵר בְּרִית בָּשָׂר. ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – ״הִכָּרֵת״ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי: הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בְּתוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהֲלָכָה, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Alternatively, one can explain: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord”; this is a reference to one who interprets the Torah inappropriately. “And has breached His commandment”; this is a reference to one who breaches the covenant of flesh, who refuses to circumcise his foreskin. “Shall be excised [hikkaret tikkaret]”; “hikkaret” refers to being excised in this world, and “tikkaret” refers to being excised from the World-to-Come. From here Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: With regard to one who desecrates consecrated items, e.g., intentionally rendering them impure; and one who treats the intermediate days of the Festivals with contempt; and one who breaches the covenant of Abraham our forefather; and one who reveals aspects in the Torah that are not in accordance with halakha; and one who humiliates another in public, even if he has to his credit Torah study and good deeds, he has no share in the World-to-Come.
וְהָאוֹמֵר: אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה וּמִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – זֶה הָאוֹמֵר: אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס.
§ The mishna teaches that those who have no share in the World-to-Come include: And one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven. The Sages taught in a baraita that with regard to the verse: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has breached His commandment; that soul shall be excised; his iniquity shall be upon him” (Numbers 15:31), this is a reference to one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven. Alternatively, one can explain: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord”; this is a reference to an epikoros, who treats the word of God with contempt.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה הַמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה. ״וְאֶת מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר״ – זֶה הַמֵּפֵר בְּרִית בָּשָׂר. ״הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת״ – ״הִכָּרֵת״ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״תִּכָּרֵת״ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי: הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בְּתוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהֲלָכָה, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Alternatively, one can explain: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord”; this is a reference to one who interprets the Torah inappropriately. “And has breached His commandment”; this is a reference to one who breaches the covenant of flesh, who refuses to circumcise his foreskin. “Shall be excised [hikkaret tikkaret]”; “hikkaret” refers to being excised in this world, and “tikkaret” refers to being excised from the World-to-Come. From here Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: With regard to one who desecrates consecrated items, e.g., intentionally rendering them impure; and one who treats the intermediate days of the Festivals with contempt; and one who breaches the covenant of Abraham our forefather; and one who reveals aspects in the Torah that are not in accordance with halakha; and one who humiliates another in public, even if he has to his credit Torah study and good deeds, he has no share in the World-to-Come.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם. וַאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, חוּץ מִפָּסוּק זֶה שֶׁלֹּא אֲמָרוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא מֹשֶׁה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ – זֶהוּ ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״. וַאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, חוּץ מִדִּקְדּוּק זֶה, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר זֶה, מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה זוֹ – זֶה הוּא ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״.
It is taught in another baraita: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord”; this is a reference to one who says the Torah did not originate from Heaven. And even if one says the entire Torah originated from Heaven except for this verse, i.e., any one verse, claiming that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not say it but Moses himself said it on his own, this is included in the category of: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.” And even if one says the entire Torah originated from Heaven except for this inference inferred by the Sages, or except for this a fortiori inference, or except for this verbal analogy, this is included in the category of: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.”
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַלּוֹמֵד תּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ מְלַמְּדָהּ – זֶה הוּא ״דְּבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַשְׁגִּיחַ עַל הַמִּשְׁנָה. רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to one who studies Torah and does not teach it to others, this person is included in the category of: “He has despised the word of the Lord,” as his conduct indicates that he does not consider the word of God significant enough to teach others. Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who does not pay the requisite attention to the Mishna and does not consider it essential halakha is included in the category of: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.” Rabbi Nehorai says: Anyone for whom it is possible to engage in Torah study and who nevertheless does not engage in its study is included in the category of: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord.”
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: זֶה הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מַאי מַשְׁמָעָה? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״כִּי דְבַר ה׳ בָּזָה״ – זֶה הַמְבַזֶּה דִּבּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי: ״אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְגוֹ׳״.
Rabbi Yishmael says: This verse: “Because he has despised the word of the Lord,” is a reference to an idol worshipper. The Gemara asks: From where in the verse is this inferred? The Gemara explains: It is derived from a verse, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Because he has despised the word [devar] of the Lord”; this is a reference to one who treats with contempt a statement [dibbur] that was stated to Moses at Sinai and heard by all of the Jewish people: “I am the Lord your God…You shall have no other gods beside me” (Exodus 20:2–3).
״וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן בִּימֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים״. אָמַר רָבָא בְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: מִכָּאן לְצַדִּיקִים שֶׁאֵין פּוֹשְׁטִין יְדֵיהֶן בְּגָזֵל. ״וַיִּמְצָא דּוּדָאִים בַּשָּׂדֶה״. מַאי דּוּדָאִים? אָמַר רַב: יַבְרוּחֵי. לֵוִי אָמַר: סִיגְלֵי. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר: סְבִיסְקֵי.
“And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest” (Genesis 30:14). Rava, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak, says that Rav says: From here it can be seen that the righteous do not extend their hands to engage in robbery even of small items, as rather than taking wheat, Reuben took only the ownerless duda’im. The verse continues: “And he found duda’im in the field.” The Gemara asks: What are duda’im? Rav says: They are a plant called yavruḥei. Levi says: They are violets. Rabbi Yonatan says: They are seviskei.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל הַמְעַשֶּׂה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמַטְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הִכִּיתָ בּוֹ אֶת הַיְאֹר״. וְכִי מֹשֶׁה הִכָּהוּ? וַהֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן הִכָּהוּ! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ: כׇּל הַמְעַשֶּׂה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ.
Rabbi Abbahu says: With regard to anyone who causes another to engage in a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him credit as though he performed it himself, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Moses…and your rod, with which you struck the river, take in your hand and go” (Exodus 17:5). And was it Moses who struck the river? But isn’t it written explicitly (see Exodus 7:19–20) that Aaron struck the river? Rather, that verse serves to say to you: Anyone who causes another to engage in a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him credit as though he performed it himself.
אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס: רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ, זֶה הַמְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרִי, זֶה הַמְבַזֶּה חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.
§ The mishna teaches that those who have no share in the World-to-Come include an epikoros. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: This is one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This is one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: הַמְבַזֶּה חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס הָוֵי, מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם עַצְמוֹ – מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהֲלָכָה הָוֵי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם עַצְמוֹ אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס הָוֵי, מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה כְּגוֹן מַאי? כְּגוֹן מְנַשֶּׁה בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is the epikoros mentioned in the mishna, one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt is characterized as one who interprets the Torah inappropriately, due to his lowering of the status of a Torah scholar. But according to the one who says that one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is the epikoros mentioned in the mishna, how would he characterize one who interprets the Torah inappropriately? Like what individual does such a person conduct himself? He is like Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, who would teach flawed interpretations of Torah narratives.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה. רַב וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרִי: זֶה הַמְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמְרִי: זֶה הַמְבַזֶּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם.
And there are those who teach this dispute with regard to the latter clause of the baraita: From here Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i said: One who interprets the Torah inappropriately has no share in the World-to-Come. Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say: This is one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This is one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַמְבַזֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם עַצְמוֹ – מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה הָוֵי, מְבַזֶּה חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס הָוֵי, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְבַזֶּה חֲבֵירוֹ בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם – מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה הָוֵי, אֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס כְּגוֹן מַאן? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן הָנֵי דְּאָמְרִי מַאי אַהֲנוֹ לַן רַבָּנַן? לְדִידְהוּ קָרוּ, לְדִידְהוּ תָּנוּ.
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is characterized as the epikoros mentioned in the mishna. But according to the one who says that one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is the one mentioned in the baraita who interprets the Torah inappropriately, how would he characterize the epikoros mentioned in the mishna? Like whom does he conduct himself? Rav Yosef says: It is referring to one who conducts himself like those who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? They read the Bible for their own benefit and they study the Mishna for their own benefit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה נָמֵי הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מֵהָכָא נָמֵי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְנָשָׂאתִי לְכׇל הַמָּקוֹם בַּעֲבוּרָם״.
Abaye said to him: That person who questions the benefit provided by Sages is also in the category of one who interprets the Torah inappropriately, since with that statement he repudiates the Torah itself, as it is written: “If not for My covenant, I would not have appointed day and night, the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). The eternal covenant of the Torah is responsible for maintaining the existence of the entire world. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: From here too conclude the same concept from it, as it is stated: “If I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city, then I will spare the entire place for their sakes” (Genesis 18:26). The righteous protect the place where they reside.
אֶלָּא, כְּגוֹן דְּיָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, וְנָפְלָה לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּדוּכְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, וְאָמַר: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן הָתָם, וְלָא אָמַר: הָכִי אָמַר מָר. רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן הָנֵי דְּבֵי בִּנְיָמִין אָסְיָא, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאי אַהֲנוֹ לַן רַבָּנַן מֵעוֹלָם?
Rather, the epikoros mentioned in the mishna is referring to one who conducts himself like one who sits before his teacher and a halakha that he learned from another place happens to fall into his consciousness and the student says: This is what we say there, and he does not say deferentially: This is what the Master said, even if he did not learn that matter from his teacher. Rava said: The term epikoros is referring to one who conducts himself like those from the house of Binyamin the doctor, who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? Never
לָא שְׁרוֹ לַן עוֹרְבָא, וְלָא אֲסַרוּ לַן יוֹנָה.
have they permitted a raven for us nor have they prohibited a dove for us. They merely tell us matters stated explicitly in the Torah.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״הָנֵי רַבָּנַן״. רַב פָּפָּא אִישְׁתְּלִי וְאָמַר: ״כְּגוֹן הָנֵי רַבָּנַן״, וְאִיתִּיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא.
Rav Pappa says: The epikoros mentioned in the mishna is referring to one who conducts himself like one who says: Those Sages, with contemptuous overtones. The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa himself forgot in one instance and said: Like those Sages, and he observed a fast to achieve atonement for expressing himself in that manner.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: זֶה הַקּוֹרֵא רַבּוֹ בִּשְׁמוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ גֵּיחֲזִי? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּרָא לְרַבּוֹ בִּשְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר גֵּחֲזִי אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ זֹאת הָאִשָּׁה וְזֶה בְּנָהּ אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱיָה אֱלִישָׁע״.
Rav Naḥman says: An epikoros is one who calls his teacher by his name and does not call him Rabbi, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason was Gehazi punished? It is due to the fact that he called his teacher by his name, as it is stated: “And Gehazi said: My lord the king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha revived” (II Kings 8:5).
מַגְבִּיהַּ, עַבְדּוֹ, שָׁבַת – סִימָן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ, נִקְרָא רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶךָ״. ״לָמָּה הִכִּיתָ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לָמָּה תַכֶּה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע.
The Gemara states a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחׇזְקָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד״.
Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַקּוֹרֵא פָּסוּק שֶׁל שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ כְּמִין זֶמֶר, וְהַקּוֹרֵא פָּסוּק בְּבֵית מִשְׁתָּאוֹת בְּלֹא זְמַנּוֹ – מֵבִיא רָעָה לָעוֹלָם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה חוֹגֶרֶת שַׂק וְעוֹמֶדֶת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְאוֹמֶרֶת לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עֲשָׂאוּנִי בָּנֶיךָ כְּכִנּוֹר שֶׁמְּנַגְּנִין בּוֹ לֵצִים.
§ The Sages taught: One who reads a verse from Song of Songs and renders it a form of secular song, and not a sacred text, and one who reads any biblical verse at a banquet house, not at its appropriate time, but merely as a song, introduces evil to the world, as the Torah girds itself with sackcloth and stands before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, Your children have rendered me like a harp on which clowns play.
אָמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין בַּמֶּה יִתְעַסְּקוּ? אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם בַּעֲלֵי מִקְרָא הֵן – יַעַסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַנְּבִיאִים וּבַכְּתוּבִים. אִם בַּעֲלֵי מִשְׁנָה הֵן – יַעַסְקוּ בַּמִּשְׁנָה, בַּהֲלָכוֹת וּבְהַגָּדוֹת. וְאִם בַּעֲלֵי תַלְמוּד הֵן – יַעַסְקוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, בְּהִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, בְּהִלְכוֹת חַג בֶּחָג. הֵעִיד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא: כׇּל הַקּוֹרֵא פָּסוּק בִּזְמַנּוֹ מֵבִיא טוֹבָה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדָבָר בְּעִתּוֹ מַה טּוֹב״.
The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the Torah: My daughter, during the time that they are eating and drinking, in what should they be engaged? The Torah says before Him: Master of the Universe, if they are masters of the Bible, let them engage in the study of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. If they are masters of the Mishna, let them engage in the study of the Mishna, in the study of halakha, and in the study of aggada. And if they are masters of the Talmud, let them engage in the study of the halakhot of Passover on Passover, in the study of the halakhot of Shavuot on Shavuot, and in the study of the halakhot of Sukkot on Sukkot. They should not treat the Torah with contempt by using it for their own entertainment. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar testified in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥananya: Anyone who reads a verse at its appropriate time and in the appropriate manner introduces good into the world, as it is stated: “And a word in its season, how good is it” (Proverbs 15:23).
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: וּבַגְּבוּלִין, וּבִלְשׁוֹן עָגָה.
§ The mishna teaches: Abba Shaul says: Also among those who have no share in the World-to-Come is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters. It is taught in a baraita: This is referring to one who pronounces the name in the outlying areas outside the Temple, and in colloquial [aga] language, for no particular purpose.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכָה יָרׇבְעָם לַמַּלְכוּת? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹכִיחַ אֶת שְׁלֹמֹה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹכִיחוֹ בָּרַבִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הֵרִים יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בָּנָה אֶת הַמִּלּוֹא סָגַר אֶת פֶּרֶץ עִיר דָּוִד אָבִיו״. אָמַר לוֹ: דָּוִד אָבִיךָ פָּרַץ פְּרָצוֹת בַּחוֹמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָרֶגֶל, וְאַתָּה גָּדַרְתָּ אוֹתָם כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת אַנְגַּרְיָא לְבַת פַּרְעֹה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For what virtue was Jeroboam privileged to ascend to monarchy? It is due to the fact that he rebuked Solomon for his sins. And for what misdeed was he punished and lost everything? It is due to the fact that he rebuked Solomon and humiliated him in public, as it is stated: “And this was the cause that he lifted his hand against the king: Solomon built the Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father” (I Kings 11:27). Jeroboam said to Solomon: David, your father, created breaches in the wall so that the Jewish people could ascend for the pilgrimage Festival, and you sealed them in order to marshal forced labor [angarya] for the daughter of Pharaoh, your wife.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה, כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזֵל לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּכְנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גּוֹזֵל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאֹמֵר אֵין פָּשַׁע חָבֵר הוּא לְאִישׁ מַשְׁחִית״. וְאֵין אָבִיו אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא הוּא אָבִיךְ קָּנֶךָ״. וְאֵין אִמּוֹ אֶלָּא כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁמַע בְּנִי מוּסַר אָבִיךָ וְאַל תִּטֹּשׁ תּוֹרַת אִמֶּךָ״.
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: With regard to anyone who derives benefit from this world without reciting a blessing, it is as though he stole from the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a corrupter” (Proverbs 28:24). And the term “his father” is referring to none other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you?” (Deuteronomy 32:6). And the term “his mother” is referring to none other than the congregation of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mother indicates that the mother represents the congregation of Israel, and the Torah of the mother is the tradition of the Jewish people.
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע כִּיתּוֹת אֵין מְקַבְּלוֹת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה: כַּת לֵצִים, כַּת שַׁקְרָנִים, כַּת חֲנֵיפִים, כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. כַּת לֵצִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת לֹצְצִים״. כַּת שַׁקְרָנִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי״. כַּת חֲנֵיפִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא לְפָנָיו חָנֵף יָבוֹא״. כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגֻרְךָ רָע״, צַדִּיק אַתָּה וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.
Apropos the previous statement, the Gemara cites an additional statement. And Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that four groups do not receive the Divine Presence: This pertains to the group of cynics, the group of liars, the group of flatterers, and the group of slanderers. This pertains to the group of cynics, as it is written: “He withdrew His hand with cynics” (Hosea 7:5), indicating that God distanced Himself from them. This pertains to the group of liars, as it is written: “He that speaks falsehoods shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7). This pertains to the group of flatterers, as it is written: “That a flatterer shall not come before Him” (Job 13:16). This pertains to the group of slanderers, as it is stated: “For You are not a God who desires wickedness; evil shall not dwell with You” (Psalms 5:5), which means: You are righteous, and there will be no form of evil in Your dwelling.
הָהוּא מִינָא דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁיבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דַּהֲוָה קָא מְצַעַר לֵיהּ. יוֹמָא חַד נְקַט תַּרְנוּגְלָא, וַאֲסַר לֵיהּ בְּכַרְעֵיהּ, וְאוֹתֵיב. אָמַר: כִּי מְטָא הָהוּא שַׁעְתָּא – אֶילְטְיֵיהּ. כִּי מְטָא הָהוּא שַׁעְתָּא, נַמְנֵם. אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא, דִּכְתִיב ״גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב״. אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִינֵי לָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר הָכִי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain heretic who was in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s neighborhood who would upset him by incessantly challenging the legitimacy of biblical verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi took a rooster and tied it by its legs and sat and waited. He said: When that moment of God’s wrath arrives, I will curse him. When that moment of God’s wrath arrived, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dozed off. When he awakened, he said: Conclude from the fact that I dozed off that it is not proper conduct to curse even the wicked, as it is written: “Punishment, even for the righteous, is not good” (Proverbs 17:26). Even with regard to heretics, a righteous person should not state a curse in order to punish them.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוָה, אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב בָּלָק, זָכָה וְיָצְאָה מִמֶּנּוּ רוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר הוּנָא: רוּת בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל עֶגְלוֹן, בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב הָיְתָה.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and performance of a mitzva even if he does not do so for their own sake, as through engaging in them not for their own sake, he will ultimately come to engage in them for their own sake. Proof for this can be cited from the example of Balak, as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak sacrificed, even though he sacrificed them to facilitate the destruction of the Jewish people, he was privileged and Ruth descended from him. Rabbi Yosei bar Huna says: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת, לֹא כֶּאֱלִישָׁע שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם, וְלֹא כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם.
The Sages taught: Always have the left hand drive sinners away and the right draw them near, so that the sinner will not totally despair of atonement. This is unlike Elisha, who pushed away Gehazi with his two hands and caused him to lose his share in the World-to-Come, and unlike Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed away Jesus the Nazarene with his two hands.
תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, יֵצֶר, תִּינוֹק, וְאִשָּׁה – תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to the evil inclination, to a child, and to a woman, have the left hand drive them away and the right draw them near. Total rejection of the evil inclination will lead to inaction, unlike channeling its power in a positive direction. One should not draw them too near, lest they lead him to sin, but one should not drive his wife or his child away completely, lest he cause them to abandon the path of righteousness.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כֹּל לֵיצָנוּתָא אֲסִירָא, חוּץ מִלֵּיצָנוּתָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּשַׁרְיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּרַע בֵּל קֹרֵס נְבוֹ ... קָרְסוּ כָרְעוּ יַחְדָּו לֹא יָכְלוּ מַלֵּט מַשָּׂא״.
§ Rav Naḥman says: All types of mockery are forbidden, except for mockery of idol worship, which is permitted, as it is written: “Bel crouches down, Nevo stoops…they stoop, they crouch down together, they could not hold back the burden” (Isaiah 46:1–2). The verse is interpreted as meaning that they crouch in order to defecate and cannot retain their excrement.
״וַיָּקׇם מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין מַחְזִיקִין בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת, דְּאָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כְקֹרַח וְכַעֲדָתוֹ״.
§ With regard to the verse: “And Moses arose and went to Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 16:25), Reish Lakish says: From here we derive that one may not perpetuate a dispute, as Rav says: Anyone who perpetuates a dispute violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “And he will not be like Korah and his assembly, as the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses to him” (Numbers 17:5). Even the aggrieved party must seek to end the dispute. Dathan and Abiram accused Moses and by right should have initiated the reconciliation. Nevertheless, Moses was not insistent on this; he went to them.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״רָאוּי לִיצְטָרֵעַ״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה לוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ לוֹ עוֹד הָבֵא נָא יָדְךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ״.
Rav Ashi says: One who perpetuates a dispute is fit to be afflicted with leprosy. It is written here: “By the hand of Moses to him,” and it is written there: “And the Lord said furthermore to him: Put now your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow” (Exodus 4:6). Based on the verbal analogy based on the term “to him” written in both verses, it is derived that the punishment for perpetuating a dispute is leprosy.
זִימְנִין הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲתָא כִּי הַאי מַעֲשֶׂה לְקַמַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הוּחְזְקָה זוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִם הוּחְזְקָה זוֹ – כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי הוּחְזְקוּ? הֲדַר חַזְיֵהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּישׁוּת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁמְעַתְּ מִילֵּי מִבַּר נַפָּחָא וְלָא אֲמַרְתְּ לִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ?
The Gemara relates: On another occasion, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan and an incident similar to this one came before them for judgment. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? When Reish Lakish heard Rabbi Yoḥanan respond in a manner identical to the earlier response of Rabbi Elazar, he turned his head and glared angrily at Rabbi Elazar, and he said to him: You heard this matter from bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, and you did not say it to me in his name? Had I known that you were stating Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion I would have accepted it.
וְאִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה.
One can learn a moral from this halakha: And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors with a punishment like the one received by the transgressors, even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, all the more so will God pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like the reward of those who perform the mitzva themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: כׇּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לָאו שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו, לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, חוּץ מִן הַנִּשְׁבָּע, וּמֵימִר, וְהַמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בַּשֵּׁם.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with that which was cited in his name, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: With regard to any prohibition in the Torah, if it is a prohibition that involves an action, one is flogged for its violation; if it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation, except for one who takes a false oath, one who substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, saying: This animal is substituted for that one, and one who curses another invoking the name of God. In those three instances, the perpetrator is flogged even though he performed no action.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מָה אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת נוֹטֵל נַפְשׁוֹ עָלֶיהָ, הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת וְגוֹ׳״
And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as one’s soul can be uprooted from the world for one transgression, for one who performs a single mitzva, it is all the more so the case that his soul will be given to him, as the reward for performing mitzvot is greater than the punishment for performing transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: It is derived from its own place in the Torah, as it is stated at the conclusion of the passage discussing intercourse with forbidden relatives, which is punishable with karet: “And the souls that perform them shall be excised” (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter:
״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם״. הָא הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלָא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כָּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה.
“That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חָזְרוּ בָּהֶן בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן, בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן,
The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.
בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִלְכְתָא כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג.
But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: “Return, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לֹא עָשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְבַעֲלֵי תְּשׁוּבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִי יִתֵּן וְהָיָה לְבָבָם זֶה לָהֶם לְיִרְאָה אֹתִי כׇּל הַיָּמִים וְגוֹ׳״.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The Jewish people fashioned the Golden Calf (see Exodus, chapter 32) only to give a claim to penitents, as it is stated after the revelation at Sinai: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26). If the nation was truly at such a lofty spiritual state, how could they worship the Golden Calf? Rather, their sin occurred so that it would be made clear that one can repent for any sin, as even a sin as severe as the Golden Calf was forgiven.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״אָכֵן כְּאָדָם תְּמוּתוּן״, מַאי מִיתָה? עֲנִיּוּת, דְּאָמַר מָר: אַרְבָּעָה חֲשׁוּבִים כְּמֵתִים, אֵלּוּ הֵן: עָנִי, סוּמָא, וּמְצוֹרָע, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים.
The Gemara inquires: And according to the first tanna as well, isn’t it written: “Yet you shall die like a man,” which indicates that their mortality was decreed only due to the sin of the Golden Calf? The Gemara answers: What is meant by death? It means poverty. As the Master said: Four are considered as though they were dead: These are a pauper, a blind person, a leper, and one who has no children.
דְּרָשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב״? וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הָלַךְ, הֵיכָן עָמַד? וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד, הֵיכָן יָשַׁב? וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב, הֵיכָן לָץ?
§ Apropos the earlier discussion of the evils of scornfulness, the Gemara cites several statements that criticize such behavior. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1)? Since he did not walk in the counsel of the wicked, how could he stand with them? And since he did not stand, how could he sit with them? And since he did not sit with them, how could he have scorned? Since he never joined the company of the wicked, he would have no reason to be involved with them in any manner.
אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁאִם הָלַךְ — סוֹפוֹ לַעֲמוֹד, וְאִם עָמַד — סוֹפוֹ לֵישֵׁב, וְאִם יָשַׁב — סוֹפוֹ לָלוּץ, וְאִם לָץ — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לָּךְ וְאִם לַצְתָּ לְבַדְּךָ תִשָּׂא״.
Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if he walked with the wicked, he will ultimately stand with them. And if he stood with them, he will ultimately sit in their company, and if he sat, he will ultimately scorn along with them. And if he scorned, the verse says about him: “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; and if you scorn, you alone shall bear it” (Proverbs 9:12).
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל הַמִּתְלוֹצֵץ יִסּוּרִין בָּאִין עָלָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה אַל תִּתְלוֹצָצוּ פֶּן יֶחְזְקוּ מוֹסְרֵיכֶם״. אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לְרַבָּנַן: בְּמָטוּתָא בָּעֵינָא מִינַּיְיכוּ דְּלָא תִּתְלוֹצְצוּ, דְּלָא לֵיתוֹ עֲלַיְיכוּ יִסּוּרִין.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Concerning anyone who scoffs, suffering will befall him, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong” (Isaiah 28:22). Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who were sitting before him: Please, I ask of you that you not scoff, so that suffering will not befall you.
אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: כָּל הַמִּתְלוֹצֵץ מְזוֹנוֹתָיו מִתְמַעֲטִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת לֹצְצִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַמִּתְלוֹצֵץ נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֵד יָהִיר לֵץ שְׁמוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בְּעֶבְרַת זָדוֹן״, וְאֵין עֶבְרָה אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יוֹם עֶבְרָה הַיּוֹם הַהוּא״.
Rav Ketina says: Concerning anyone who scoffs, his sustenance is lessened, as it is stated: “He stretches out his hand with scorners” (Hosea 7:5), meaning that God withdraws His providence from scoffers and does not provide for them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Anyone who scoffs falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath” (Proverbs 21:24). And wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated with regard to the Day of Judgment: “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah 1:15).
אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כׇּל הַמִּתְיַיהֵר נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֵד יָהִיר לֵץ שְׁמוֹ עוֹשֶׂה בְּעֶבְרַת זָדוֹן״, וְאֵין עֶבְרָה אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יוֹם עֶבְרָה הַיּוֹם הַהוּא״. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִילַאי בַּר חֲנִילַאי: כׇּל הַמִּתְלוֹצֵץ גּוֹרֵם כְּלָיָיה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה אַל תִּתְלוֹצָצוּ פֶּן יֶחְזְקוּ מוֹסְרֵיכֶם כִּי כָלָה וְנֶחֱרָצָה שָׁמַעְתִּי״.
Rabbi Oshaya says, based on the same verse: Anyone who is haughty falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath” (Proverbs 21:24). And wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah 1:15). Rabbi Ḥanilai bar Ḥanilai says: Anyone who scoffs causes extermination to be wrought upon the world, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong; for an extermination wholly determined have I heard from the Lord, the God of hosts, upon the whole land” (Isaiah 28:22).
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: קָשָׁה הִיא שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ יִסּוּרִין וְסוֹפוֹ כְּלָיָיה. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: ״אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ״ לְטֵרַטְיָאוֹת וּלְקִרְקְסִיאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, ״וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד״ — זֶה שֶׁלֹּא עָמַד בְּקִנִגְיוֹן, ״וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב״ — שֶׁלֹּא יָשַׁב בְּתַחְבּוּלוֹת.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Scoffing is a severe sin, as at first one is punished with suffering, and ultimately one is punished with extermination. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked,” this is referring to the theaters and circuses of gentiles; “nor stood in the way of sinners,” this is referring to one who has not stood as an observer at bestial contests [bekinigiyyon]; “nor sat in the seat of the scornful,” this is referring to one who has not sat in the bad company of people who engage in scoffing and jeering.
שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר אָדָם: הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הָלַכְתִּי לְטֵרַטְיָאוֹת וּלְקִרְקְסִיאוֹת וְלֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּקִנִגְיוֹן, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶתְגָּרֶה בְּשֵׁינָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה״.
Lest a person say: Since I did not go to theaters and circuses, and did not stand in bestial contests, I will go and indulge in sleep, the verse states: “And he meditates in His law day and night” (Psalms 1:2). This demonstrates that it is not sufficient simply to avoid transgressions; rather, it is necessary to engage actively in Torah study.
מַכְרִיז רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי: מַאן בָּעֵי חַיֵּי? מַאן בָּעֵי חַיֵּי? (כנוף) [אִיכְּנוּף] וַאֲתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הַב לַן חַיֵּי! אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״מִי הָאִישׁ הֶחָפֵץ חַיִּים וְגוֹ׳ נְצֹר לְשׁוֹנְךָ מֵרָע וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Alexandri would proclaim in public, in the manner of a merchant selling wares: Who desires life? Who desires life? Everyone gathered around him to buy from him, saying to him: Give us life! He stated the following verse to them: “Who is the man that desires life, and loves days, that he may see good in them? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile” (Psalms 34:13–14).
״סוּר מֵרָע וַעֲשֵׂה טוֹב וְגוֹ׳״, שֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר: נָצַרְתִּי לְשׁוֹנִי מֵרָע וּשְׂפָתַי מִדַּבֵּר מִרְמָה, אֵלֵךְ וְאֶתְגָּרֶה בְּשֵׁינָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״סוּר מֵרָע וַעֲשֵׂה טוֹב״, ואין ״טוֹב״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ״.
The psalm continues: “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:15). The Gemara explains: Lest one say: I have kept my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile, I will therefore go and indulge in sleep. To counter this possibility, the verse states: “Depart from evil, and do good,” i.e., it is not enough to avoid evil, but one must actively do good. And the word good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion; My Torah, do not abandon it” (Proverbs 4:2).
מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר: תּוֹרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זְהִירוּת, זְהִירוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זְרִיזוּת, זְרִיזוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי נְקִיּוּת, נְקִיּוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי פְּרִישׁוּת, פְּרִישׁוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי טׇהֳרָה, טׇהֳרָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי חֲסִידוּת, חֲסִידוּת מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲנָוָה, עֲנָוָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא, יִרְאַת חֵטְא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי קְדוּשָּׁה, קְדוּשָּׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים, וַחֲסִידוּת גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָז דִּבַּרְתָּ בְחָזוֹן לַחֲסִידֶיךָ״.
From here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir would say: Torah study leads to care in the performance of mitzvot. Care in the performance of mitzvot leads to diligence in their observance. Diligence leads to cleanliness of the soul. Cleanliness of the soul leads to abstention from all evil. Abstention from evil leads to purity and the elimination of all base desires. Purity leads to piety. Piety leads to humility. Humility leads to fear of sin. Fear of sin leads to holiness. Holiness leads to the Divine Spirit. The Divine Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead. And piety is greater than all of them, as it is stated: “Then You did speak in a vision to Your pious ones” (Psalms 89:20).
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עֲנָוָה גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רוּחַ ה׳ אֱלֹהִים עָלָי יַעַן מָשַׁח ה׳ אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים״, ״חֲסִידִים״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״עֲנָוִים״, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁעֲנָוָה גְּדוֹלָה מִכּוּלָּן.
And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Humility is greater than all of them, as it is stated: “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the humble” (Isaiah 61:1). Since the pious is not stated, but rather “the humble,” you learn that humility is greater than all of them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה — מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר, זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without achieving understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? No; it is necessary to examine an issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן קוֹדֵם לְלֵוִי, לֵוִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר, וּמַמְזֵר לְנָתִין, וְנָתִין לְגֵר, וְגֵר לְעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר. אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁכּוּלָּם שָׁוִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ – מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ.
MISHNA: A priest precedes a Levite. A Levite precedes an Israelite. An Israelite precedes a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], and a mamzer precedes a Gibeonite, and a Gibeonite precedes a convert, and a convert precedes an emancipated slave. When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. But if there were a mamzer who is a Torah scholar and a High Priest who is an ignoramus, a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes a High Priest who is an ignoramus, as Torah wisdom surpasses all else.