מאי קרא (תהלים עא, ו) ממעי אמי אתה גוזי מאי משמע דהאי גוזי לישנא דאשתבועי הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו ז, כט) גזי נזרך והשליכי ואמר רבי אלעזר למה ולד דומה במעי אמו לאגוז מונח בספל של מים אדם נותן אצבעו עליו שוקע לכאן ולכאן תנו רבנן שלשה חדשים הראשונים ולד דר במדור התחתון אמצעיים ולד דר במדור האמצעי אחרונים ולד דר במדור העליון וכיון שהגיע זמנו לצאת מתהפך ויוצא וזהו חבלי אשה והיינו דתנן חבלי של נקבה מרובין משל זכר ואמר רבי אלעזר מאי קרא (תהלים קלט, טו) אשר עשיתי בסתר רקמתי בתחתיות ארץ דרתי לא נאמר אלא רקמתי מאי שנא חבלי נקבה מרובין משל זכר זה בא כדרך תשמישו וזה בא כדרך תשמישו זו הופכת פניה וזה אין הופך פניו תנו רבנן שלשה חדשים הראשונים תשמיש קשה לאשה וגם קשה לולד אמצעיים קשה לאשה ויפה לולד אחרונים יפה לאשה ויפה לולד שמתוך כך נמצא הולד מלובן ומזורז תנא המשמש מטתו ליום תשעים כאילו שופך דמים מנא ידע אלא אמר אביי משמש והולך (תהלים קטז, ו) ושומר פתאים ה' תנו רבנן שלשה שותפין יש באדם הקב"ה ואביו ואמו אביו מזריע הלובן שממנו עצמות וגידים וצפרנים ומוח שבראשו ולובן שבעין אמו מזרעת אודם שממנו עור ובשר ושערות ושחור שבעין והקב"ה נותן בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים וראיית העין ושמיעת האוזן ודבור פה והלוך רגלים ובינה והשכל וכיון שהגיע זמנו להפטר מן העולם הקב"ה נוטל חלקו וחלק אביו ואמו מניח לפניהם אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי פוץ מלחא ושדי בשרא לכלבא דרש רב חיננא בר פפא מאי דכתיב (איוב ט, י) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר ונפלאות עד אין מספר בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם נותן חפץ בחמת צרורה ופיה למעלה ספק משתמר ספק אין משתמר ואילו הקב"ה צר העובר במעי אשה פתוחה ופיה למטה ומשתמר דבר אחר אדם נותן חפציו לכף מאזנים כל זמן שמכביד יורד למטה ואילו הקב"ה כל זמן שמכביד הולד עולה למעלה דרש רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי דכתיב {תהילים קל״ט:י״ד } אודך (ה') על כי נוראות נפליתי נפלאים מעשיך ונפשי יודעת מאד בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם אדם נותן זרעונים בערוגה כל אחת ואחת עולה במינו ואילו הקב"ה צר העובר במעי אשה וכולם עולין למין אחד דבר אחר צבע נותן סמנין ליורה כולן עולין לצבע אחד ואילו הקב"ה צר העובר במעי אשה כל אחת ואחת עולה למינו דרש רב יוסף מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו יב, א) אודך ה' כי אנפת בי ישוב אפך ותנחמני במה הכתוב מדבר בשני בני אדם שיצאו לסחורה ישב לו קוץ לאחד מהן התחיל מחרף ומגדף לימים שמע שטבעה ספינתו של חבירו בים התחיל מודה ומשבח לכך נאמר ישוב אפך ותנחמני והיינו דאמר רבי אלעזר מאי דכתיב (תהלים עב, יח) עושה נפלאות (גדולות) לבדו וברוך שם כבודו לעולם אפילו בעל הנס אינו מכיר בנסו דריש רבי חנינא בר פפא מאי דכתיב (תהלים קלט, ג) ארחי ורבעי זרית וכל דרכי הסכנת מלמד שלא נוצר אדם מן כל הטפה אלא מן הברור שבה תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל משל לאדם שזורה בבית הגרנות נוטל את האוכל ומניח את הפסולת כדרבי אבהו דרבי אבהו רמי כתיב (שמואל ב כב, מ) ותזרני חיל וכתיב (תהלים יח, לג) האל המאזרני חיל אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע זיריתני וזרזתני דרש רבי אבהו מאי דכתיב (במדבר כג, י) מי מנה עפר יעקב ומספר את רובע ישראל מלמד שהקב"ה יושב וסופר את רביעיותיהם של ישראל מתי תבא טיפה שהצדיק נוצר הימנה ועל דבר זה נסמית עינו של בלעם הרשע אמר מי שהוא טהור וקדוש ומשרתיו טהורים וקדושים יציץ בדבר זה מיד נסמית עינו דכתיב (במדבר כד, ג) נאם הגבר שתום העין והיינו דאמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (בראשית ל, טז) וישכב עמה בלילה הוא מלמד שהקב"ה סייע באותו מעשה שנאמר (בראשית מט, יד) יששכר חמור גרם חמור גרם לו ליששכר אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר איש מזריע תחילה יולדת נקבה שנאמר (ויקרא יג, כט) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר תנו רבנן בראשונה היו אומרים אשה מזרעת תחילה יולדת זכר איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה ולא פירשו חכמים את הדבר עד שבא רבי צדוק ופירשו (בראשית מו, טו) אלה בני לאה אשר ילדה ליעקב בפדן ארם ואת דינה בתו תלה הזכרים בנקבות ונקבות בזכרים (דברי הימים א ח, מ) ויהיו בני אולם אנשים גבורי חיל דורכי קשת ומרבים בנים ובני בנים וכי בידו של אדם להרבות בנים ובני בנים אלא מתוך
What is the verse from which it is derived that a fetus is administered an oath on the day of its birth? “Upon You I have relied from birth; You are He Who took me out [gozi] of my mother’s womb” (Psalms 71:6). From where may it be inferred that this word: “Gozi,” is a term of administering an oath? As it is written: “Cut off [gozi] your hair and cast it away” (Jeremiah 7:29), which is interpreted as a reference to the vow of a nazirite, who must cut off his hair at the end of his term of naziriteship. And Rabbi Elazar says: To what is a fetus in its mother’s womb comparable? It is comparable to a nut placed in a basin full of water, floating on top of the water. If a person puts his finger on top of the nut, it sinks either in this direction or in that direction. § The Sages taught in a baraita: During the first three months of pregnancy, the fetus resides in the lower compartment of the womb; in the middle three months, the fetus resides in the middle compartment; and during the last three months of pregnancy the fetus resides in the upper compartment. And once its time to emerge arrives, it turns upside down and emerges; and this is what causes labor pains. With regard to the assertion that labor pains are caused by the fetus turning upside down, the Gemara notes: And this is the explanation for that which we learned in a baraita: The labor pains experienced by a woman who gives birth to a female are greater than those experienced by a woman who gives birth to a male. The Gemara will explain this below. And Rabbi Elazar says: What is the verse from which it is derived that a fetus initially resides in the lower part of the womb? “When I was made in secret, and I was woven together in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psalms 139:15). Since it is not stated: I resided in the lowest parts of the earth, but rather: “I was woven together in the lowest parts of the earth,” this teaches that during the initial stage of a fetus’s development, when it is woven together, its location is in the lower compartment of the womb. The Gemara asks: What is different about the labor pains experienced by a woman who gives birth to a female, that they are greater than those experienced by a woman who gives birth to a male? The Gemara answers: This one, a male fetus, emerges in the manner in which it engages in intercourse. Just as a male engages in intercourse facing downward, so too, it is born while facing down. And that one, a female fetus, emerges in the manner in which it engages in intercourse, i.e., facing upward. Consequently, that one, a female fetus, turns its face around before it is born, but this one, a male fetus, does not turn its face around before it is born. § The Sages taught in a baraita: During the first three months of pregnancy, sexual intercourse is difficult and harmful for the woman and is also difficult for the offspring. During the middle three months, intercourse is difficult for the woman but is beneficial for the offspring. During the last three months, sexual intercourse is beneficial for the woman and beneficial for the offspring; as a result of it the offspring is found to be strong and fair skinned. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with his wife on the ninetieth day of her pregnancy, it is as though he spills her blood. The Gemara asks: How does one know that it is the ninetieth day of her pregnancy? Rather, Abaye says: One should go ahead and engage in intercourse with his wife even if it might be the ninetieth day, and rely on God to prevent any ensuing harm, as the verse states: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). § The Sages taught: There are three partners in the creation of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, and his father, and his mother. His father emits the white seed, from which the following body parts are formed: The bones, the sinews, the nails, the brain that is in its head, and the white of the eye. His mother emits red seed, from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the hair, and the black of the eye. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, inserts into him a spirit, a soul, his countenance [ukelaster], eyesight, hearing of the ear, the capability of speech of the mouth, the capability of walking with the legs, understanding, and wisdom. And when a person’s time to depart from the world arrives, the Holy One, Blessed be He, retrieves His part, and He leaves the part of the person’s father and mother before them. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Remove the salt from a piece of meat, and you may then toss the meat to a dog, as it has become worthless. § Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who does great deeds beyond comprehension, wondrous deeds without number” (Job 9:10)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that if one puts an article in a flask, even if the flask is tied and its opening faces upward, it is uncertain whether the item is preserved from getting lost, and it is uncertain whether it is not preserved from being lost. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a woman’s open womb, and its opening faces downward, and yet the fetus is preserved. Another matter that demonstrates the difference between the attributes of God and the attributes of people is that when a person places his articles on a scale to be measured, the heavier the item is, the more it descends. But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms a fetus, the heavier the offspring gets, the more it ascends upward in the womb. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Psalms 139:14)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that when a person plants seeds of different species in one garden bed, each and every one of the seeds emerges as a grown plant according to its species. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a woman’s womb, and all of the seeds, i.e., those of both the father and the mother, emerge when the offspring is formed as one sex. Alternatively, when a dyer puts herbs in a cauldron [leyora], they all emerge as one color of dye, whereas the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a woman’s womb, and each and every one of the seeds emerges as its own type. In other words, the seed of the father form distinct elements, such as the white of the eye, and the seed of the mother forms other elements, such as the black of the eye, as explained above. Rav Yosef taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And on that day you shall say: I will give thanks to You, Lord, for You were angry with me; Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me” (Isaiah 12:1)? With regard to what matter is the verse speaking? It is referring, for example, to two people who left their homes to go on a business trip. A thorn penetrated the body of one of them, and he was consequently unable to go with his colleague. He started blaspheming and cursing in frustration. After a period of time, he heard that the ship of the other person had sunk in the sea, and realized that the thorn had saved him from death. He then started thanking God and praising Him for his delivery due to the slight pain caused to him by the thorn. This is the meaning of the statement: I will give thanks to You, Lord, for You were angry with me. Therefore, it is stated at the end of the verse: “Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me.” And this statement is identical to that which Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who does wondrous things alone; and blessed be His glorious name forever” (Psalms 72:18–19)? What does it mean that God “does wondrous things alone”? It means that even the one for whom the miracle was performed does not recognize the miracle that was performed for him. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You measure [zerita] my going about [orḥi] and my lying down [riv’i], and are acquainted with all my ways” (Psalms 139:3)? This verse teaches that a person is not created from the entire drop of semen, but from its clear part. Zerita can mean to winnow, while orḥi and riv’i can both be explained as references to sexual intercourse. Therefore the verse is interpreted homiletically as saying that God separates the procreative part of the semen from the rest. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a parable: This matter is comparable to a person who winnows grain in the granary; he takes the food and leaves the waste. This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raises a contradiction: It is written in one of King David’s psalms: “For You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle” (II Samuel 22:40), without the letter alef in vatazreni; and it is written in another psalm: “Who girds me [hame’azreni] with strength” (Psalms 18:33), with an alef in hame’azreini. What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You selected me [zeiritani], i.e., You separated between the procreative part and the rest of the semen in order to create me, and You have girded me [zeraztani] with strength. Rabbi Abbahu taught: What is the meaning of that which is written in Balaam’s blessing: “Who has counted the dust of Jacob, or numbered the stock [rova] of Israel” (Numbers 23:10)? The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and counts the times that the Jewish people engage in intercourse [revi’iyyoteihem], anticipating the time when the drop from which the righteous person will be created will arrive. And it was due to this matter that the eye of wicked Balaam went blind. He said: Should God, who is pure and holy, and whose ministers are pure and holy, peek at this matter? Immediately his eye was blinded as a divine punishment, as it is written: “The saying of the man whose eye is shut” (Numbers 24:3). And this statement is the same as that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written, with regard to Leah’s conceiving Issachar: “And he lay with her that night” (Genesis 30:16)? The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, contributed to that act. The manner in which God contributed to this act is derived from another verse, as it is stated: “Issachar is a large-boned [garem] donkey” (Genesis 49:14). This teaches that God directed Jacob’s donkey toward Leah’s tent so that he would engage in intercourse with her, thereby causing [garam] Leah’s conceiving Issachar. § Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Ami says: The sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female, as it is stated: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male” (Leviticus 12:2). The Sages taught: At first, people would say that if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female. But the Sages did not explain from which verse this matter is derived, until Rabbi Tzadok came and explained that it is derived from the following verse: “These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, with his daughter Dinah” (Genesis 46:15). From the fact that the verse attributes the males to the females, as the males are called: The sons of Leah, and it attributes the females to the males,in that Dinah is called: His daughter, it is derived that if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, whereas if the man emits seed first, she bears a female. This statement is also derived from the following verse: “And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor, archers, and had many sons and sons’ sons” (I Chronicles 8:40). Is it in a person’s power to have many sons and sons’ sons? Rather, because
(כב) וַיִּבֶן֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים ׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃ (כג) וַיֹּאמֶר֮ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקֳחָה־זֹּֽאת׃
(22) And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. (23) Then the man said, “This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken.”
(ד) אֵֽשֶׁת־חַ֭יִל עֲטֶ֣רֶת בַּעְלָ֑הּ וּכְרָקָ֖ב בְּעַצְמוֹתָ֣יו מְבִישָֽׁה׃
(4) A capable wife is a crown for her husband, But an incompetent one is like rot in his bones.
(יח) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶׂהּ־לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃
(18) The LORD God said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.”
(לא) וַיַּ֤רְא אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם הַשִּׁשִּֽׁי׃ (פ)
(31) And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
(ג) וְקָרָ֨א זֶ֤ה אֶל־זֶה֙ וְאָמַ֔ר קָד֧וֹשׁ ׀ קָד֛וֹשׁ קָד֖וֹשׁ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת מְלֹ֥א כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ כְּבוֹדֽוֹ׃
(3) And one would call to the other, “Holy, holy, holy! The LORD of Hosts! His presence fills all the earth!”
(טו) אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
(15) You are indeed a God who concealed Himself, O God of Israel, who bring victory!
(כח) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָם֮ אֱלֹהִים֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לָהֶ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֗ים פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֛וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ וּרְד֞וּ בִּדְגַ֤ת הַיָּם֙ וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּ֖ה הָֽרֹמֶ֥שֶׂת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(28) God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”
(ט) לֹֽא־יָרֵ֥עוּ וְלֹֽא־יַשְׁחִ֖יתוּ בְּכָל־הַ֣ר קָדְשִׁ֑י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֣ה הָאָ֗רֶץ דֵּעָה֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה כַּמַּ֖יִם לַיָּ֥ם מְכַסִּֽים׃ (פ)
(9) In all of My sacred mount Nothing evil or vile shall be done; For the land shall be filled with devotion to the LORD As water covers the sea.
(ח) שִׁוִּ֬יתִי יְהוָ֣ה לְנֶגְדִּ֣י תָמִ֑יד כִּ֥י מִֽ֝ימִינִ֗י בַּל־אֶמּֽוֹט׃
(8) I am ever mindful of the LORD’s presence; He is at my right hand; I shall never be shaken.
(יד) כָּל־כְּבוּדָּ֣ה בַת־מֶ֣לֶךְ פְּנִ֑ימָה מִֽמִּשְׁבְּצ֖וֹת זָהָ֣ב לְבוּשָֽׁהּ׃
(14) goods of all sorts. The royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings,
שהכל ברא לכבודו ויוצר האדם ואשר יצר את האדם בצלמו בצלם דמות תבניתו והתקין לו ממנו בנין עדי עד ברוך אתה ה' יוצר האדם שוש תשיש ותגל העקרה בקבוץ בניה לתוכה בשמחה ברוך אתה ה' משמח ציון בבניה שמח תשמח ריעים האהובים כשמחך יצירך בגן עדן מקדם ברוך אתה ה' משמח חתן וכלה ברוך אתה ה' אמ"ה אשר ברא ששון ושמחה חתן וכלה גילה רינה דיצה חדוה אהבה ואחוה ושלום וריעות מהרה ה' אלהינו ישמע בערי יהודה ובחוצות ירושלים קול ששון וקול שמחה קול חתן וקול כלה קול מצהלות חתנים מחופתם ונערים ממשתה נגינתם בא"י משמח חתן עם הכלה לוי איקלע לבי רבי בהלוליה דר"ש בריה בריך חמש רב אסי איקלע לבי רב אשי בהלוליה דמר בריה בריך שית לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ס חדא יצירה הואי ומ"ס שתי יצירות הואי לא דכ"ע חדא יצירה הואי מ"ס בתר מחשבה אזלינן ומ"ס בתר מעשה אזלינן כי הא דרב יהודה רמי כתיב (בראשית א, כז) ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו וכתיב (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראם הא כיצד בתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראות שנים ולבסוף נברא אחד רב אשי איקלע לבי רב כהנא יומא קמא בריך כולהו מכאן ואילך אי איכא פנים חדשות בריך כולהו ואי לא אפושי שמחה בעלמא הוא מברך שהשמחה במעונו ואשר ברא משבעה ועד שלשים בין אמר להו מחמת הלולא ובין לא אמר להו מחמת הלולא מברך שהשמחה במעונו מכאן ואילך אי אמר להו מחמת הלולא מברך שהשמחה במעונו ואי לא לא וכי א"ל מחמת הלולא עד אימת אמר רב פפי משמיה דרבא עד תריסר ירחי שתא ומעיקרא מאימת אמר רב פפא מכי רמו שערי באסינתא איני והא רב פפא איעסק לאבא מר בריה ובריך משעת אירוסין שאני רב פפא דהוה טריח ליה רבינא איעסק ליה לבריה בי רב חביבא ובריך משעת אירוסין אמר קים לי בגוייהו דלא הדרי בהו לא אסתייע מילתא והדרי בהו רב תחליפא בר מערבא איקלע לבבל בריך שית אריכתא ולית הלכתא כוותיה רב חביבא איקלע לבי מהולא בריך שהשמחה במעונו ולית הלכתא כוותיה משום דטרידי דאית ליה צערא לינוקא א"ר נחמן אמר רב חתנים מן המנין ואין אבלים מן המנין מיתיבי חתנים ואבלים מן המנין מתניתא קא רמית עליה דרב רב תנא הוא ופליג איתמר אמר ר' יצחק א"ר יוחנן חתנים מן המנין ואין אבלים מן המנין מיתיבי חתנים ואבלים מן המנין
Who has created all for His glory. And the second blessing is: Blessed are You…Creator of mankind. And the third blessing is: Blessed are You…Who made humanity in His image, in the image of the likeness of His form, and out of His very self formed a building (see Genesis 2:22) for eternity. Blessed are You, Lord, Creator of mankind. The fourth blessing is: May the barren city of Jerusalem greatly rejoice and delight with the ingathering of her children within her in joy. Blessed are You, Lord, Who gladdens Zion through her children. The fifth blessing is: Bring great joy to these loving friends, as You gave joy to Your creations in Eden in ancient times. Blessed are You, Lord, Who brings joy to the groom and bride. The sixth blessing is: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has created joy and gladness, groom and bride, delight, exultation, happiness, jubilation, love and brotherhood, and peace and friendship. Soon, Lord our God, may there be heard in the cities of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem the sound of joy and the sound of gladness, the sound of the groom and the sound of the bride, the joyous sound of grooms from their wedding canopy and of young people from their feast of song (see Jeremiah 33:11). Blessed are You, Lord, Who makes the groom rejoice with the bride. Together with the blessing over the wine, these are the seven wedding blessings. The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi during the wedding celebration of Rabbi Shimon, his son, and recited five of these blessings. Rav Asi happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi during the wedding celebration of Mar, his son, and recited six of these blessings. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: One Sage holds: It was one act of creation with which man was created. And one Sage holds: It was two acts of creation with which man was created. The first opinion, that there was one act of creation, is based on the concept that man was created with two sides, one male and one female. There was no additional act of creation. Man and woman were subsequently separated into two independent beings. Therefore, there is no need for the two blessings: Who created mankind, and: Who created mankind in His image. The second opinion is that there were in fact two separate acts of creation. Therefore, it is appropriate to recite two blessings with regard to the creation of mankind. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, everyone agrees that it was only one act of creation. However, one Sage holds: It is according to the initial thought that we proceed. And one Sage holds: It is according to the action that we proceed. God’s initial thought was to create man and woman as separate entities. Ultimately, they were created as one entity. That explanation is like the following. Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “And God created man in His own image” (Genesis 1:27), indicating one act of creation, and in another verse it is written: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2), indicating two acts. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? Initially, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, but ultimately only one was actually created. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi happened to come to the house of Rav Kahana to attend a wedding. The first day he recited all seven blessings. From that point forward, if there were new faces present, he recited all the blessings, and if not, he would say: It is merely an extension of the original celebration, and he would recite the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy, in the zimmun prior to Grace after Meals, and the sixth blessing after Grace after Meals: Who has created. § Apropos the wedding blessings, the Gemara continues: From seven days after the wedding until the thirtieth day, whether the groom said to the guests that he is inviting them due to the wedding celebration or whether he did not say to them that he is inviting them due to the wedding celebration, he recites the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy. From this point, thirty days after the wedding, forward, if he said to them that he is inviting them due to the wedding celebration [hillula], he recites the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy, and if not, he doesn’t. The Gemara asks: And when the groom said to them that he is inviting them due to the wedding celebration, until when is this blessing recited? Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: Until twelve months of the year have passed since the wedding. Since his legal status remains that of a groom, the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy, may be recited. The Gemara asks: And initially, prior to the wedding, from when is that blessing recited? Rav Pappa said: From when they cast barley into the mortar to prepare beer for the wedding. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Pappa, involve himself in preparations for the wedding of his son, Abba Mar, and begin reciting the blessing from the time of betrothal? Rav Pappa is different, because the wedding preparations had already been prepared for him, and it was merely a matter of waiting for the designated time to arrive. Therefore, the wedding celebration began for him from the time of betrothal. The Gemara relates: Ravina arranged for his son to marry a woman from the house of Rav Ḥaviva and recited the blessing from the time of betrothal. He said: I am certain with regard to them, that they will not retract their commitment and terminate the betrothal, and the wedding will take place on time. Nevertheless, the matter was not to be, and ultimately they retracted their commitment, and the wedding was canceled. The Gemara relates: Rav Taḥlifa, from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, happened to come to Babylonia, and he elaborated on the themes of the wedding blessings and recited six long blessings. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Rather, one must adhere to the formula coined by the Sages. It is further related: Rav Ḥaviva happened to come to the house where a circumcision was taking place. He recited the blessing: In Whose dwelling is joy. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion. Since the parents of the baby are anxious, as the baby is experiencing pain, it is not appropriate to recite the blessing under those circumstances. § Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: With regard to the quorum of ten required to recite the wedding blessings, grooms are included in the tally. And mourners are not included in the tally for the blessing of the mourners. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Grooms and mourners are included in the tally. The Gemara responds: Are you raising a contradiction from a baraita against the opinion of Rav? Rav himself had tanna status and therefore, unlike later amora’im, could disagree with opinions of tanna’im. It was stated: Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Grooms are included in the tally, but mourners are not included in the tally. The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita cited above: Grooms and mourners are included in the tally.
(ח) לֹֽא־יָמ֡וּשׁ סֵפֶר֩ הַתּוֹרָ֨ה הַזֶּ֜ה מִפִּ֗יךָ וְהָגִ֤יתָ בּוֹ֙ יוֹמָ֣ם וָלַ֔יְלָה לְמַ֙עַן֙ תִּשְׁמֹ֣ר לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּכָל־הַכָּת֖וּב בּ֑וֹ כִּי־אָ֛ז תַּצְלִ֥יחַ אֶת־דְּרָכֶ֖ךָ וְאָ֥ז תַּשְׂכִּֽיל׃
(8) Let not this Book of the Teaching cease from your lips, but recite it day and night, so that you may observe faithfully all that is written in it. Only then will you prosper in your undertakings and only then will you be successful.
אי נמי שדות בכסף יקנו (ירמיה לב,מד) תני האישה נקנית וניתני התם האיש קונה מעיקרא תני לישנא דאורייתא ולבסוף תני לישנא דרבנן ומאי לישנא דרבנן דאסר לה אכולי עלמא כהקדש וניתני הכא האיש קונה משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא וקונה את עצמה בדידה תנא נמי רישא בדידה וניתני האיש קונה ומקנה משום דאיכא מיתת הבעל דלאו איהו קא מקני מן שמיא הוא דמקני לה ואי בעית אימא אי תנא קונה ה"א אפילו בעל כרחה תנא האשה נקנית דמדעתה אין שלא מדעתה לא ומאי איריא דתני שלוש ליתני שלושה משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ודרך לשון נקבה הוא דכתיב והדעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה (שמות יח,כ) ואלא הא דתניא בשבעה דרכים בודקין את הזב ניתני שבע משום דקא בעי למיתני דרך ואשכחן דרך דאיקרי לשון זכר דכתיב בדרך אחד יצאו אליך ובשבעה דרכים ינוסו לפניך (דברים כח,ז) אי הכי קשו קראי אהדדי וקשיא נמי מתני' אהדדי קראי אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דבתורה קאי ותורה איקרי לשון נקבה דכתיב תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש (תהילים יט,ח) כתב לה בלשון נקבה התם דבמלחמה קאי דדרכו של איש לעשות מלחמה ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה כתב לה בלשון זכר מתני' אהדדי לא קשיין הכא דלגבי אשה קאי קתני לה בלשון נקבה התם דלגבי איש קאי דדרכו של איש ליבדק ואין דרכה של אשה ליבדק דהא אשה נמי באונס מיטמאה תני לשון זכר מ"ט תני שלוש משום דרכים ניתני דברים וניתני שלושה משום דקבעי למיתני ביאה וביאה איקרי דרך דכתיב ודרך גבר בעלמה כן דרך אשה מנאפת (משלי ל,יט-כ) הא תינח ביאה כסף ושטר מאי איכא למימר משום ביאה ותני תרתי אטו חדא הנך נמי צורך ביאה נינהו ואי בעית אימא הא מני ר' שמעון היא דתניא ר"ש אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה כי יקח איש אישה (דברים כב,יג) ולא כתב כי תלקח אשה לאיש מפני שדרכו של איש לחזר על אשה ואין דרכה של אשה לחזר על איש משל לאדם שאבדה לו אבידה מי חוזר על מי בעל האבידה מחזר על אבידתו והא דתנן בז' דרכים בודקין את הזב ליתני דברים התם הא קמ"ל דדרכא דמיכלא יתירא לאותיי לידי זיבה ודרכה דמישתיא יתירא לאתויי לידי זיבה והא דתנן אתרוג שווה לאילן בג' דרכים ליתני דברים משום דבעינן מתני סיפא ולירק בדרך אחד סיפא נמי ניתני דבר
Alternatively, it can be proven that purchasing a field with money is called an acquisition from the verse: “They shall acquire fields with money” (Jeremiah 32:44). Consequently, as the tanna wanted to teach that a woman can be betrothed with money, he taught: A woman is acquired. This explains why the terminology of acquisition is used in this mishna. The Gemara asks: But let the mishna teach there, in the next chapter: A man acquires. The Gemara explains: Initially, the mishna taught using the language of the Torah, in which betrothal is called taking. And ultimately, in the next chapter, it taught using the language of the Sages. And what is the reason that betrothal is called kiddushin, literally, consecration, in the language of the Sages? The reason is that through betrothal the husband renders her forbidden to everyone like consecrated property. Therefore, this act is referred to as consecration. The Gemara asks another question with regard to the difference in wording between the two mishnayot: And let it teach here, as in the following chapter: A man acquires. Why does this mishna teach: The woman is acquired, with the woman as the subject of the sentence? The Gemara answers: This is because the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause of the mishna: And she acquires herself, which is stated with regard to her. Therefore, the tanna also taught the halakha stated with regard to her in the first clause. The Gemara further asks: But if this is the reason, the mishna could have been formulated entirely differently. Let it teach: The man can acquire a woman and transfer authority, i.e., grant her the release from marriage in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara answers: The mishna could not use the expression: Transfer, because there is the case of the husband’s death, in which it is not he who transfers authority. Rather, it is from Heaven that her freedom is transferred to her. Therefore, the mishna could not issue a general statement that the man can actively transfer to the woman her release from marriage. And if you wish, say instead another explanation. If the mishna had taught: The man acquires the woman, I would say that he can acquire her even against her will, as indicated by the expression: He acquires. One might have assumed that the betrothal depends on the husband, without the need for the woman’s consent. Therefore the mishna taught: The woman is acquired, from which it may be inferred that with her consent, yes, he can acquire her as a wife, but when he acts without her consent, no, she is not betrothed to him. The Gemara continues to analyze the style of the mishna: And why does the tanna specifically teach: Three [shalosh] ways, formulated in the feminine? Let it teach: Three [shelosha] ways, formulated in the masculine. The Gemara explains: The mishna uses this form because it wants to teach the word way [derekh], and derekh is formulated in the feminine, as it is written: “And you shall show them the way [derekh] in which [bah] they must walk” (Exodus 18:20). The term bah, which is referring to derekh, is formulated in the feminine. The Gemara challenges: But with regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Nazir 65b): One examines a zav in seven [shiva] ways [derakhim], where shiva is formulated in the masculine, let it teach: Seven [sheva] ways, formulated in the feminine. The Gemara answers: The mishna uses the masculine formulation of the term seven because it wanted to teach: Derekh, and we find that the word derekh is referred to in the masculine form, as it is written: “They shall come out against you one way [derekh], and shall flee before you seven [shiva] ways” (Deuteronomy 28:7). The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, as in one verse the term derekh is masculine, and in the other verse it is feminine. And furthermore, the mishnayot contradict each other, as in one mishna derekh is masculine while in the other it is feminine. The Gemara answers: The verses do not contradict each other. Here, that verse: “The way in which they must walk” (Exodus 18:20), is referring to the Torah, i.e., the way mentioned here is referring to the path of the Torah, and Torah is referred to in the feminine form, as it is written: “The Torah of the Lord is perfect [temima], restoring the soul” (Psalms 19:8). The word temima is in the feminine. Consequently, in reference to the Torah the verse writes: Derekh, formulated in the feminine. There, that verse: “Shall flee before you seven ways” (Deuteronomy 28:7), is referring to war, and as it is the way of a man to wage war and it is not the way of a woman to wage war, it is appropriate to speak in the masculine. Therefore, the verse writes the word derekh formulated in the masculine. Likewise, the mishnayot do not contradict each other: Here, where it is referring to a woman, the mishna teaches derekh formulated in the feminine. There, with regard to the examination of a zav, where it is referring to a man, as it is common for a man to undergo an examination to determine if his emission has a cause other than a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva] but it is not common for a woman to undergo an examination, since, unlike a man, a woman is rendered impure even by circumstances beyond her control, it taught and used the word derekh formulated in the masculine. Even if a woman has an emission of blood for a reason other than illness, she is still impure. Consequently, in her case there is no reason for an examination to see what might have caused her discharge. The Gemara asks another question with regard to the language of the mishna: What is the reason that the mishna teaches: Three [shalosh], formulated in the feminine? This is because it wanted to teach: Ways. But if so, let it teach instead the word: Matters, i.e., a woman can be acquired through three matters, and as this term is masculine, let it teach three [shelosha], in the masculine. The Gemara answers: The mishna did do so because it wanted to teach intercourse as one of these ways, and intercourse is called a way in the Torah, as it is written: “And the way of a man with a young woman, so is the way of an adulterous woman” (Proverbs 30:19–20). For this reason the mishna used the term ways rather than matters. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well with regard to intercourse, which is referred to as a way. But what is there to say concerning money and a document? The mishna could have used the word matters with regard to these modes of betrothal. The Gemara answers: Because it was necessary to mention intercourse, which is called a way, the mishna used the word way in reference to the other two modes as well. The Gemara asks: And would the mishna teach two cases in a particular manner due to one? Since the word way suits only one of the three modes of betrothal, why didn’t the mishna use the term: Matters, on account of the other two? The Gemara answers: These, too, are for the sake of sexual intercourse. Since the marital relationship, in which intercourse is paramount, is the ultimate purpose of betrothal, the mishna considers this clause as the most important part of the halakha. And if you wish, say instead: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna, which teaches derekh? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: For what reason did the Torah say: “When a man takes a woman” (Deuteronomy 22:13) and did not write: “When a woman is taken by a man? Because it is the way [derekh] of a man to pursue a woman, and it is not the way of a woman to pursue a man. The Gemara cites a parable of a man who lost an item. Who searches for what? Certainly the owner of the lost item searches for his lost item, not the other way around. Since woman was created from man’s lost side, the man seeks that which he has lost. To allude to this statement of Rabbi Shimon, the mishna employs the term derekh in this context. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One examines a zav in seven ways, why does it use this phraseology? Let it teach the word: Matters. The Gemara answers that the mishna there teaches us this halakha, that it is the way of excessive eating to lead to ziva, and likewise it is the way of excessive drinking to lead to ziva. Therefore, the mishna uses the phrase: Seven ways, to emphasize that there are ways of behavior that can cause the emission of a zav. The Gemara further challenges: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 2:6): The halakhot of an etrog tree correspond to those of a tree in three ways. Let it teach instead: Three matters. The Gemara answers: Because it wants to teach in the latter clause: And the halakhot of an etrog tree correspond to those of a vegetable in one way, therefore the mishna uses the term: Ways, in the first clause as well. The Gemara asks: In the latter clause too, let the mishna teach: Matter, rather than: Way.
(יד) כָּל־כְּבוּדָּ֣ה בַת־מֶ֣לֶךְ פְּנִ֑ימָה מִֽמִּשְׁבְּצ֖וֹת זָהָ֣ב לְבוּשָֽׁהּ׃
(14) goods of all sorts. The royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings,
(כא) וּנְתַתִּ֤יו בְּיַֽד־הַזָּרִים֙ לָבַ֔ז וּלְרִשְׁעֵ֥י הָאָ֖רֶץ לְשָׁלָ֑ל וחללה [וְחִלְּלֽוּהוּ׃]
(21) I will give them as spoil to strangers, and as plunder to the wicked of the earth; and they shall defile them.
(א) וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֱלֹהִים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ וגו' (בראשית ג, כג), כְּתִיב (דניאל ח, יג): וָאֶשְׁמְעָה אֶחָד קָדוֹשׁ מְדַבֵּר וַיֹּאמֶר אֶחָד קָדוֹשׁ לַפַּלְמוֹנִי הַמְדַבֵּר וגו', וָאֶשְׁמַע אֶחָד, זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו, ד): שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' אֶחָד. קָדוֹשׁ, כִּי הַכֹּל אוֹמְרִים לְפָנָיו קָדוֹשׁ. מְדַבֵּר, גָּזַר גְּזֵרוֹת קָשׁוֹת עַל בְּרִיּוֹתָיו, (בראשית ג, יח): וְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֶחָד קָדוֹשׁ לַפַּלְמוֹנִי הַמְדַבֵּר, רַבִּי הוּנָא לַפְּלָנְיָא, תִּרְגֵּם עֲקִילַס לַפְּנִימִי, זֶה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה מְחִצָּתוֹ לִפְנִים מִמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. (דניאל ח, יג): עַד מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד, גְּזֵרָה שֶׁנִּגְזְרָה עַל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לְעוֹלָם הָיְתָה, אֶתְמְהָא, (דניאל ח, יג): וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם, כָּךְ יִהְיֶה פִּשְׁעוֹ שׁוֹמֵם עָלָיו בַּקֶּבֶר, (דניאל ח, יג): תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס, כָּךְ יִהְיֶה הוּא וְתוֹלְדוֹתָיו, עֲשׂוּיִים מִרְמָס לִפְנֵי מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת. (דניאל ח, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי עַד עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר אַלְפַּיִם וּשְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת וגו', רַבִּי עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק, בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֶרֶב אֵין בֹּקֶר וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֹּקֶר אֵין עֶרֶב, אֶלָא לִכְשֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה בֹּקְרָן שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים עֶרֶב וְעַרְבָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בֹּקֶר, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה (דניאל ח, יד): וְנִצְדַּק קֹדֶשׁ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֲנִי מַצְדִיקָן מֵאוֹתָהּ גְּזֵרָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֱלֹהִים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ.
(ב) הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי כד, ל): עַל שְׂדֵה אִישׁ עָצֵל עָבַרְתִּי וְעַל כֶּרֶם אָדָם חֲסַר לֵב, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא הֲרֵי שֶׁקָּנָה שָׂדֶה וְקָנָה כֶּרֶם קָרוּי אִישׁ, וְקָרוּי אָדָם, וְנִקְרָא עָצֵל, מָה הֲנָיָה לוֹ. אֶלָּא עַל שְׂדֵה אִישׁ עָצֵל עָבַרְתִּי, זֶה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, עַל כֶּרֶם אָדָם חֲסַר לֵב, זוֹ חַוָּה. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת חַוָּה אָדָם (ישעיה מד, יג): כְּתִפְאֶרֶת אָדָם לָשֶׁבֶת בָּיִת. (משלי כד, לא): וְהִנֵּה עָלָה כֻלּוֹ קִמְּשֹׁנִים, (בראשית ג, יח): וְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ. (משלי כד, לא): כָּסּוּ פָנָיו חֲרֻלִּים, (בראשית ג, יט): בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם. (משלי כד, לא): וְגֶדֶר אֲבָנָיו נֶהֱרָסָה, (בראשית ג, כג): וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ ה' מִגַּן עֵדֶן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁלָחוֹ הִתְחִיל מְקוֹנֵן עָלָיו, (בראשית ג, כב): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֱלֹהִים הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, הָוָה כְּחַד מִמֶּנּוּ.
(ג) אִם יַעֲלֶה לַשָּׁמַיִם שִׂיאוֹ וְרֹאשׁוֹ לָעָב יַגִּיעַ (איוב כ, ו), אִם יַעֲלֶה לַשָּׁמַיִם שִׂיאוֹ, רוּמֵיהּ. וְרֹאשׁוֹ לָעָב יַגִּיעַ, עַד מָטֵי עֲנָנַיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מְלוֹא כָל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בְּרָאוֹ מִן הַמִּזְרָח לַמַּעֲרָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלט, ה): אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי, מִן הַצָּפוֹן לַדָּרוֹם מִנַּיִן (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, וּמִנַּיִן אַף כַּחֲלָלוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (תהלים קלט, ה): וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה. (איוב כ, ז): כְּגֶלְּלוֹ לָנֶצַח יֹאבֵד, עַל שֶׁגָּלַל מִצְוָה קַלָּה נִטְרַד מִגַּן עֵדֶן, (איוב כ, ז): רֹאָיו יֹאמְרוּ אַיּוֹ, הוּא הָאָדָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁטְּרָדוֹ הִתְחִיל מְקוֹנֵן עָלָיו וְאוֹמֵר הֵן הָאָדָם וגו'.
(ד) תִּתְקְפֵהוּ לָנֶצַח וַיַּהֲלֹךְ מְשַׁנֶּה פָנָיו וַתְּשַׁלְּחֵהוּ (איוב יד, כ), תֹּקֶף שֶׁנָּתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לָנֶצַח, לְעוֹלָם הָיָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְהָלַךְ אַחַר דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ, מְשַׁנֶּה פָנָיו וַתְּשַׁלְּחֵהוּ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁלָחוֹ הִתְחִיל מְקוֹנֵן עָלָיו וְאוֹמֵר: הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ.
(ה) דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי פַּפּוּס הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּאֶחָד מִמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דַּיְּךָ פַּפּוּס, אָמַר לוֹ מָה אַתָּה מְקַיֵּם הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַמָּקוֹם לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי דְרָכִים, דֶּרֶךְ הַחַיִּים וְדֶרֶךְ הַמָּוֶת, וּבֵרַר לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אַחֶרֶת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן אָמַר כִּיחִידוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו, ד): שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' אֶחָד. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי כְּגַבְרִיאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל י, ה): וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ אֶחָד לָבוּשׁ בַּדִּים, כְּהָדֵין קַמְצָא דִּלְבוּשֵׁיהּ מִינֵיהּ וּבֵיהּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּיוֹנָה, מַה זֶּה בּוֹרֵחַ מִשְׁלִיחוּתוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יונה א, ג): וַיָּקָם יוֹנָה לִבְרֹחַ תַּרְשִׁישָׁה מִלִּפְנֵי ה', אַף זֶה בּוֹרֵחַ מִלְּקַיֵּים צִוּוּי הַמָּקוֹם. מַה זֶּה לֹא לָן בִּכְבוֹדוֹ, אַף זֶה לֹא לָן כְּבוֹדוֹ עִמּוֹ. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר כְּאֵלִיָּהוּ, מַה זֶּה לֹא טָעַם טַעַם מָוֶת, אַף זֶה לֹא הָיָה רָאוּי לִטְעֹם טַעַם מָוֶת, הִיא דַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָנִין, דְּאָמַר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם הָיָה כְּאֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּטְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ צַלְעָתוֹ, לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע.
(ו) וְעַתָּה פֶּן יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ (בראשית ג, כב), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפָּתַח לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פֶּתַח שֶׁל תְּשׁוּבָה, וְעַתָּה, אֵין וְעַתָּה אֶלָּא תְּשׁוּבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים י, יב): וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וגו', וְהוּא אוֹמֵר פֶּן, וְאֵין פֶּן אֶלָּא לַאו. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וְאָכַל גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, אֶתְמְהָא, וְאִם אוֹכֵל הוּא חַי לְעוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ (בראשית ג, כג): וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ ה' אֱלֹהִים מִגַּן עֵדֶן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁלָחוֹ הִתְחִיל מְקוֹנֵן עָלָיו וְאָמַר: הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ.
(ז) וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ ה' אֱלֹהִים מִגַּן עֵדֶן (בראשית ג, כג), רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר שִׁלְּחוֹ מִגַּן עֵדֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְשִׁלְּחוֹ מִגַּן עֵדֶן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר שִׁלְחוֹ מִגֵּן עֵדֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְלֹא לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִקְשָׁה עָלָיו, וְעַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה רִיתָה עָלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי הוּנָא אִתְפַּלְגּוּן רַבִּי אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה וְרַבִּי הַמְנוּנָא, חַד אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְחַד אָמַר כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְהָא מְסַיֵּעַ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה (תהלים יז, טו): אֲנִי בְּצֶדֶק אֶחֱזֶה פָנֶיךָ אֶשְׂבְּעָה בְהָקִיץ תְּמוּנָתֶךָ, לִכְשֶׁיָּקִיץ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּבְרָא בִּדְמוּתְךָ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֲנִי בְּצֶדֶק אֶחֱזֶה פָנֶיךָ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֲנִי מַצְדִיקוֹ מֵאוֹתָהּ גְּזֵרָה, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי כְּשֶׁבְּרָאוֹ בְּרָאוֹ בְּמִדַּת הַדִּין וּבְמִדַּת הָרַחֲמִים, וּכְשֶׁטְּרָדוֹ, טְרָדוֹ בְּמִדַּת הַדִּין וּבְמִדַּת הָרַחֲמִים. הֵן הָאָדָם, הָא אָדָם לֹא יָכוֹלְתָּ לַעֲמֹד בְּצִוּוּיָךְ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, אֶתְמְהָא. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פְּדָיָא מִי יְגַלֶּה עָפָר מֵעֵינֶיךָ אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹא יָכוֹלְתָּ לַעֲמֹד בַּצִּוּוּי אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, וַהֲרֵי בָּנֶיךָ מַמְתִּינִין לְעָרְלָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט, כג): שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא כַּד שָׁמַע בַּר קַפָּרָא כֵּן, אָמַר יָפֶה דָּרַשְׁתָּ בֶּן אֲחוֹתִי.
(ח) וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם (בראשית ג, כד), רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כְּבַת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּתְגַּרְשָׁה וְאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזֹר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּתְגַּרְשָׁה וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לַחֲזֹר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הִקְשָׁה עָלָיו, עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן רִיתָה עָלָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיְגָרֶשׁ, הֶרְאָה לוֹ חֻרְבַּן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הֵיךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (איכה ג, טז): וַיַּגְרֵס בֶּחָצָץ שִׁנָּי. רַבִּי לוּלְיָאנִי בַּר טַבְרִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לְמִגְרָשָׁהּ שֶׁל עֵדֶן גֵּרְשׁוֹ, וְהוֹשִׁיב עָלָיו שׁוֹמְרִים שֶׁיִּשְׁמְרוּ אוֹתוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ה, ו): וְעַל הֶעָבִים אֲצַוֶּה מֵהַמְטִיר עָלָיו מָטָר.
(ט) מִקֶּדֶם, רַב אָמַר בְּכָל מָקוֹם רוּחַ מִזְרָחִית קוֹלֶטֶת, אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן עֵדֶן. קַיִּן, וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן מִלִּפְנֵי ה' וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד קִדְמַת עֵדֶן. הָרוֹצֵחַ, (דברים ד, מא): אָז יַבְדִּיל משֶׁה שָׁלשׁ עָרִים בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְרְחָה שָׁמֶשׁ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מִקֶּדֶם, קֶדֶם לַגַּן עֵדֶן נִבְרְאוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (יחזקאל י, כ): הִיא הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר רָאִיתִי תַּחַת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּנְהַר כְּבָר וָאֵדַע כִּי כְּרוּבִים הֵמָּה. וְאֶת לַהַט, עַל שֵׁם (תהלים קד, ד): מְשָׁרְתָיו אֵשׁ לֹהֵט. הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, שֶׁהֵם מִתְהַפְּכִים, פְּעָמִים אֲנָשִׁים, פְּעָמִים נָשִׁים, פְּעָמִים רוּחוֹת, פְּעָמִים מַלְאָכִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מִקֶּדֶם, מִקֹּדֶם לַגַּן עֵדֶן נִבְרֵאת גֵּיהִנֹם, גֵּיהִנֹּם בַּשֵּׁנִי וְגַן עֵדֶן בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי. וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, עַל שֵׁם (מלאכי ג, יט): וְלִהַט אֹתָם הַיּוֹם הַבָּא. הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, שֶׁהִיא מִתְהַפֶּכֶת עַל הָאָדָם וּמְלַהַטְתּוֹ מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו, וּמֵרַגְלָיו וְעַד רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר אָדָם מִי מַצִּיל אֶת בָּנַי מֵאֵשׁ לוֹהֶטֶת זוֹ, רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר חֶרֶב מִילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע ה, ב): עֲשֵׂה לְךָ חַרְבוֹת צוּרִים. רַבָּנִין אַמְרֵי חֶרֶב תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קמט, ו): וְחֶרֶב פִּיפִיּוֹת בְּיָדָם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אָדָם שֶׁבָּנָיו עֲתִידִים לֵירֵד לַגֵּיהִנֹּם, מִעֵט עַצְמוֹ מִפְּרִיָה וּרְבִיָה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁאַחַר כ"ו דּוֹרוֹת עֲתִידִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְקַבֵּל הַתּוֹרָה, נִזְקַק לְהַעֲמִיד תּוֹלְדוֹת, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (בראשית ד, א): וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ.
(3) ...R’ Yehoshua bar Nechemyah and R’ Yehudah bar Simon in R’ Elazar’s name said: He created him filling the whole world. From where [do we know he extended] from the East to West? That it’s said: “Back/achor (i.e., after, the place of sunset) and before/East/qedem You formed/enclosed me /tsartani” [Ps 139:5]. From where [that he went] from North to South? That it’s said: “and from the edge of the heavens and until the edge of the heavens” [Dt 4:32]. And from where [that he filled] even the world’s hollow-space? That it’s said: “. . . and You laid Your palm upon me” [Ps 139:5].
(6) And now lest he send his hand: Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, "It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, opened an opening of repentance for him: 'and now' - and 'and now' is always [referring to] repentance, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 10:12), 'And now Israel, what does the Lord, your God, etc.' And it states, 'lest'; and 'lest' is always [meaning], no (such that Adam refused to repent). The Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'He will also send his hand and eat from the Tree of life - it is a wonder; if he will eat, he will live forever!' Therefore, 'And the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden.' Once He sent him away, He began to lament, 'Behold, man.'"
מתני׳ הוציאו לו את הכף ואת המחתה חפן מלא חפניו ונתן לתוך הכף הגדול לפי גדלו והקטן לפי קטנו וכך היתה מדתה נטל את המחתה בימינו ואת הכף בשמאלו גמ׳ מחתה תנא ליה נטל את המחתה ועלה לראש המזבח וחותה ויורד התם מחתה דגחלים והכא מחתה דקטורת דתניא הוציאו לו כף ריקן מלשכת הכלים ומחתה גדושה של קטורת מלשכת בית אבטינס חפן מלא חפניו ונותן לתוך הכף הגדול לפי גדלו והקטן לפי קטנו וכך היתה מדתה כף ביום הכפורים למה לי (ויקרא טז, יב) מלא חפניו והביא אמר רחמנא משום דלא אפשר דהיכי נעביד נעייל והדר נעייל הבאה אחת אמר רחמנא ולא שתי הבאות נשקליה לקטורת בחופניו ונחתיה [למחתה] עלה וליעול כי מטי התם היכי לעביד נשקליה בשיניה ונחתיה למחתה השתא לפני מלך בשר ודם אין עושין כן לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה על אחת כמה וכמה הלכך לא אפשר וכיון דלא אפשר עבדינן כדאשכחן בנשיאים נטל את המחתה בימין ואת הכף בשמאל יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא זו מרובה וזו מועטת ואפילו בזמן ששניהן שוין וכמעשה דרבי ישמעאל בן קמחית זו חמה וזו צוננת אמרו עליו על רבי ישמעאל בן קמחית שהיה חופן ארבעת קבין במלוא חפניו ואומר כל הנשים זרדו וזרד אימא עלה לגג איכא דאמרי בערסן וכדרבה בר יונתן דאמר רבה בר יונתן אמר רבי יחיאל ערסן יפה לחולה ואיכא דאמרי בשכבת זרע וכדרבי אבהו דרבי אבהו רמי כתיב (שמואל ב כב, מ) ותזרני [חיל] למלחמה וכתיב (תהלים יח, לג) המאזרני חיל למלחמה אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע זריתני וזרזתני אמרו עליו על רבי ישמעאל בן קמחית פעם אחת סיפר דברים עם ערבי אחד בשוק ונתזה צינורא מפיו על בגדיו ונכנס ישבב אחיו ושמש תחתיו וראתה אמן שני כהנים גדולים ביום אחד ושוב אמרו עליו על רבי ישמעאל בן קמחית פעם אחת יצא וסיפר עם אדון אחד בשוק ונתזה צינורא מפיו על בגדיו ונכנס יוסף (עם) אחיו ושמש תחתיו וראתה אמן שני כהנים גדולים ביום אחד ת"ר שבעה בנים היו לה לקמחית וכולן שמשו בכהונה גדולה אמרו לה חכמים מה עשית שזכית לכך אמרה להם מימי לא ראו קורות ביתי קלעי שערי אמרו לה הרבה עשו כן ולא הועילו ת"ר (ויקרא ו, ח) בקומצו שלא יעשה מדה לקומץ איבעיא להו מהו שיעשה מדה לחפינה התם הוא דכתיב בקומצו אבל הכא דלא כתיב בחפניו אלא (ויקרא טז, יב) מלא חפניו קטורת סמים דקה לא או דילמא יליף מלא מלא מקומצו ת"ש וכך היתה מדתה מאי לאו שאם רצה לעשות מדה אחרת עושה לא ה"ק וכך היה חוזר וחופנה לפנים שמעת מינה חופן וחוזר וחופן דילמא שאם רצה לעשות מדה עושה אי נמי שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר ת"ר מלא קומצו יכול מבורץ ת"ל בקומצו אי בקומצו יכול אפילו בראשי אצבעותיו תלמוד לומר מלא קומצו כדקמצי אינשי הא כיצד חופה שלש אצבעותיו על פיסת ידו וקומץ
MISHNA: They brought out the spoon and the coal pan to the High Priest so he may perform the service of the incense. He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon with incense in an amount corresponding to the small size of his hands. And this was the measure of the spoon, i.e., it was made to correspond to the size of his hands. He took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. GEMARA: The Gemara expresses surprise at the statement of the mishna. In an earlier mishna, the tanna already taught that the High Priest must bring the coal pan: He takes a coal pan and ascends to the top of the altar and rakes and descends. Why does the tanna mention the taking of the coal pan again? The Gemara explains: There the mishna deals with the coal pan of burning coals, and here the mishna is referring to the coal pan of incense, which he would later scoop out. As it was explicitly taught in a baraita: They brought out an empty spoon for him from the chamber of vessels, and a coal pan heaped with incense from the Chamber of the House of Avtinas. § The mishna taught: He scoops his handfuls from the incense and places it into the spoon. The High Priest with large hands fills the spoon with incense corresponding to the large size of his hands, and the High Priest with small hands fills the spoon corresponding to the small size of his hands, and this was the measure of the spoon, according to the size of his hands. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a spoon on Yom Kippur? After all, the Merciful One states: “And he shall take a coal pan full of coals of fire from off the altar from before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and bring it within the veil” (Leviticus 16:12). This verse suggests that the handfuls are brought by hand rather than in a vessel. The Gemara answers: The High Priest uses a spoon because it is impossible to perform the service otherwise. The Gemara elaborates: As what should we do? Let him bring in the coal pan and then bring in the incense? The Merciful One states one act of bringing for the coals and the incense, and not two acts of bringing. Instead, let him take the incense by his handfuls and place the coal pan on top of his two handfuls and enter, carrying it all in one go. This suggestion is also impractical, as when he arrives there, in the Holy of Holies, what should he do? How can the High Priest put down the coal pan where it is? Let him take the coal pan in his teeth and lower it. Now, before a king of flesh and blood one would not do so, as it is disrespectful. All the more so, one would not act in this manner before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it is impossible for the High Priest to behave in another way, and since it is impossible to act in any other manner, he acts as we find with regard to the sacrifices of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle. On that occasion, the princes brought spoons filled with incense: “One golden spoon of ten shekels full of incense” (Numbers 7:14). § The mishna taught that the High Priest took the coal pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left hand. The Gemara questions this arrangement by citing a well-known maxim: The native is on the ground and the stranger is in the heavens; i.e., this is the opposite of what one would expect. The main component of the mitzva is the incense, while the coal pan is required only for burning the incense. Consequently, the High priest should carry the spoon, which contains the main component of the service, in his right hand, and the accessory in his left hand. The Gemara explains: The service is performed in this manner for reasons of comfort, as this coal pan is greater in weight, since it holds the coals, and that spoon of incense weighs less. And even when the two of them are equal, when the spoon contains three kav of incense like the action of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, who could hold several kav in his exceptionally large hands, nevertheless, this coal pan is hot and must be held carefully in the right hand, and that spoon of incense is cold and is easily carried in the left. § Since the Gemara has mentioned Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit, it discusses him further. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit that his hands were so large that he would scoop up four kav, which he would hold by his handfuls, and say: All the women selected the best they could for their children, but the selection of my mother rose to the roof, i.e., my mother chose the best. Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit is referring to himself, as he matured to a great height and stature. Some say he was referring to his mother’s selection of flour, in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Yonatan. As Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rabbi Yeḥiel said: Flour is beneficial and healthy for the sick. Since his mother ate this flour when she was pregnant with him, her son grew heartily. And some say this reference to selection is a euphemism for semen, in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “For You have girded me [vatazreni] with strength for battle” (II Samuel 22:40), and it is written in a parallel verse: “Who girds me [hame’azreni] with strength” (Psalms 18:33). What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: You selected me [zeritani] with the best drop of semen that my mother absorbed, with which, You fashioned me [zeraztani] within her. This accounts for the variant forms of this expression. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit. They said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he was talking to a certain Arab in the market on Yom Kippur, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the Arab’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, who was the High Priest at the time. This spittle rendered him ritually impure by rabbinic law, like the ritual impurity of a zav, preventing him from serving in the Temple. And his brother Yeshevav entered and served as High Priest on that day in his stead. And, consequently, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day. And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day. The Sages taught in a baraita: Kimḥit had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God. § The Sages taught: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal-offering, and of its oil” (Leviticus 6:8). This verse teaches that he should not measure an amount for the handful of a meal-offering with a utensil, but he should separate it directly by hand. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether the High Priest may measure an amount for the handful of incense? Must the incense also be scooped by hand? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Perhaps there, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, it is different, as it is written “in his handful,” which indicates that he must use his hand rather than a vessel. However here, where it is not written: In his hands, but “and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small” (Leviticus 16:12), perhaps this teaches that the handfuls of incense need not be taken directly by hand, and the High Priest may use a vessel to scoop out the required amount. Or perhaps this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “full” and “full,” from “his handful,” which is stated regarding the meal-offering. If this verbal analogy is accepted, the High Priest may likewise scoop the incense only by hand. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: And this was the measure of the spoon. What, is it not correct to infer from the mishna that although the required measure is a handful, the High Priest is not obligated to scoop with his hand, and if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this is what the mishna said; this is what it means: And so too, the High Priest would return and scoop the incense inside the Holy of Holies in precisely the same manner. The Gemara asks: If so, I can learn from this that the High Priest scoops the incense, and again scoops. That is, after scooping once, the High Priest repeats the action and scoops again in the Holy of Holies. This issue is subject to a dispute in the Gemara below. The Gemara rejects this claim: No; perhaps the mishna indeed means that if he wanted to measure a different amount, he may measure the incense with a vessel. The language of the mishna does not conclusively prove which interpretation is correct, and it is possible that the Gemara’s previous inference from the mishna is accurate. Consequently, the issue of whether or not the High Priest scoops incense a second time in the Holy of Holies cannot be considered resolved. Alternatively, the mishna may mean that the High Priest must take neither less nor more, and therefore this statement has no bearing on the dispute with regard to his scooping. § The Sages taught: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2). I might have thought it should be overflowing from the handful, and therefore the verse states: “His handful” (Leviticus 6:8), which indicates a precise amount. If the halakha is based solely on the phrase “his handful,” I might have thought the priest may pinch a small amount even with just his fingertips, not with his entire finger. Therefore, the verse states: “His handfuls” (Leviticus 2:2), meaning as people usually take a handful, i.e., with their whole hand. How should he perform this service? He scoops by closing his three fingers over the palm of his hand, and takes a handful from the flour of the meal-offering.
(כז) עֹכֵ֣ר בֵּ֭יתוֹ בּוֹצֵ֣עַ בָּ֑צַע וְשׂוֹנֵ֖א מַתָּנֹ֣ת יִחְיֶֽה׃
(27) He who pursues ill-gotten gain makes trouble for his household; He who spurns gifts will live long.
ששהו את קיניהן מיהא מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו שכבום בזיון קדשים דכתיב (שמואל א ב, טו) גם בטרם יקטירון את החלב ובא נער הכהן ואמר לאיש הזובח תנה בשר לצלות לכהן ולא יקח ממך בשר מבושל כי אם חי ויאמר אליו האיש קטר יקטירון כיום החלב וקח לך כאשר תאוה נפשך ואמר לו כי עתה תתן ואם לא לקחתי בחזקה ותהי חטאת הנערים גדולה מאד את פני ה' כי נאצו האנשים את מנחת ה' מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב מפני ג' דברים שהיו בו ע"ז וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו כח, כ) כי קצר המצע מהשתרע מאי קצר המצע מהשתרע א"ר יונתן קצר מצע זה מהשתרר עליו שני רעים כאחד (ישעיהו כח, כ) והמסכה צרה כהתכנס א"ר שמואל בר נחמני כי מטי רבי יונתן להאי קרא בכי אמר מאן דכתיב ביה (תהלים לג, ז) כונס כנד מי הים נעשית לו מסכה צרה גלוי עריות דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, טז) ויאמר ה' יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ותלכנה נטויות גרון ומשקרות עינים הלוך וטפוף תלכנה וברגליהן תעכסנה יען כי גבהו בנות ציון שהיו מהלכות ארוכה בצד קצרה ותלכנה נטויות גרון שהיו מהלכות בקומה זקופה ומשקרות עינים דהוו מליין כוחלא עיניהן הלוך וטפוף תלכנה שהיו מהלכות עקב בצד גודל וברגליהן תעכסנה א"ר יצחק שהיו מביאות מור ואפרסמון ומניחות במנעליהן וכשמגיעות אצל בחורי ישראל בועטות ומתיזות עליהן ומכניסין בהן יצה"ר כארס בכעוס שפיכות דמים דכתיב (מלכים ב כא, טז) וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה [הרבה מאד] עד אשר מלא את ירושלם פה לפה אבל מקדש שני שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות ע"ז גלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים רשעים היו אלא שתלו בטחונם בהקב"ה אתאן למקדש ראשון דכתיב (מיכה ג, יא) ראשיה בשוחד ישפוטו וכהניה במחיר יורו ונביאיה בכסף יקסומו ועל ה' ישענו לאמר הלא ה' בקרבנו לא תבוא עלינו רעה לפיכך הביא עליהן הקב"ה ג' גזרות כנגד ג' עבירות שבידם שנאמר (מיכה ג, יב) לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש וירושלים עיין תהיה והר הבית לבמות יער ובמקדש ראשון לא הוה ביה שנאת חנם והכתיב (יחזקאל כא, יז) מגורי אל חרב היו את עמי לכן ספוק אל ירך וא"ר (אליעזר) אלו בני אדם שאוכלין ושותין זה עם זה ודוקרין זה את זה בחרבות שבלשונם ההיא בנשיאי ישראל הואי דכתיב (יחזקאל כא, יז) זעק והילל בן אדם כי היא היתה בעמי ותניא זעק והילל בן אדם יכול לכל תלמוד לומר היא בכל נשיאי ישראל ר' יוחנן ור"א דאמרי תרווייהו ראשונים שנתגלה עונם נתגלה קצם אחרונים שלא נתגלה עונם לא נתגלה קצם אמר רבי יוחנן טובה צפורנן של ראשונים מכריסו של אחרונים א"ל ריש לקיש אדרבה אחרונים עדיפי אף על גב דאיכא שעבוד מלכיות קא עסקי בתורה אמר ליה בירה תוכיח שחזרה לראשונים ולא חזרה לאחרונים שאלו את רבי אלעזר ראשונים גדולים או אחרונים גדולים אמר להם תנו עיניכם בבירה איכא דאמרי אמר להם עידיכם בירה ריש לקיש הוי סחי בירדנא אתא רבה בר בר חנה יהב ליה ידא א"ל אלהא סנינא לכו דכתיב (שיר השירים ח, ט) אם חומה היא נבנה עליה טירת כסף ואם דלת היא נצור עליה לוח ארז אם עשיתם עצמכם כחומה ועליתם כולכם בימי עזרא נמשלתם ככסף שאין רקב שולט בו עכשיו שעליתם כדלתות נמשלתם כארז שהרקב שולט בו מאי ארז אמר עולא ססמגור מאי ססמגור אמר רבי אבא בת קול כדתניא משמתו נביאים האחרונים חגי זכריה ומלאכי נסתלקה רוח הקדש מישראל ועדיין היו משתמשין בבת קול וריש לקיש מי משתעי בהדי רבה בר בר חנה ומה רבי (אליעזר) דמרא דארעא דישראל הוה ולא הוה משתעי ר"ל בהדיה דמאן דמשתעי ר"ל בהדיה בשוק יהבו ליה עיסקא בלא סהדי בהדי רבב"ח משתעי אמר רב פפא שדי גברא בינייהו או ריש לקיש הוה וזעירי או רבה בר בר חנה הוה ור"א כי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן א"ל לאו היינו טעמא א"נ סליקו כולהו בימי עזרא לא הוה שריא שכינה במקדש שני דכתיב (בראשית ט, כז) יפת אלהים ליפת וישכן באהלי שם
that they deferred the sacrifice of their bird-offerings by women after childbirth; nevertheless, the verse ascribes to them as if they lay with them. These women came to the Tabernacle to sacrifice doves or pigeons as bird-offerings as part of their purification process, which would permit them to engage in sexual relations with their husbands. Eli’s sons delayed the sacrifice of these offerings and thereby delayed the return of these women to their husbands and their fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. Even though, according to this opinion, Eli’s sons did not actually engage in sexual relations with these women, the verse attributes that degree of severity to their conduct. Eli’s sons also sinned in the degradation of consecrated items, as it is written: “Before the fat was made burned, the priest’s servant came and said to the man who sacrificed: Hand over some flesh to roast for the priest, for he will not take cooked flesh from you, but raw. And if the man said to him: Let the fat be burnt first and then take as much as you want, then he would say: No, hand it over right now, or I will take it by force. The sin of the young men against the Lord was very great, for the men treated the Lord’s offerings with contempt” (I Samuel 2:15–17). § 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). What is the meaning of: “The bed is too short for stretching?” Rabbi Yonatan said: This bed is too short for two counterparts [re’im] to dominate [mehistarer]. Mehistare’a is a contraction of mehistarer re’im. It is inconceivable that there would be in one Temple both service of God and worship of the idol placed there by King Manasseh. What is the meaning of: And the cover [vehamasseikha] is too narrow [tzara] for gathering [kehitkannes]? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that when Rabbi Yonatan reached this verse, he wept and said: For He about Whom it is written: “He gathers [kones] waters of the sea together as a heap” (Psalms 33:7), the idol [masseikha] became a rival [tzara]? In the homiletic interpretation, masseikha is interpreted as idol and tzara is interpreted as rival, as in the term used to describe the relationship between two women married to the same husband, isha tzara. 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]. With regard to bloodshed it is written: “Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (II Kings 21:16). 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. The Gemara continues: They were wicked; however, they put their faith in the Holy One, Blessed be He. With that statement we have come to the First Temple era, about which it is written: “Her chiefs judge for bribes, her priests give rulings for a fee, and her prophets divine for pay; yet they rely on the Lord, saying: The Lord is in our midst, no tragedy will overtake us” (Micah 3:11). At least the final portion of the verse was to their credit. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought upon them three decrees corresponding to their three wicked sins, as it is stated: “Therefore, due to you Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become heaps of ruins, and the Temple Mount will be a like shrine in the woods” (Micah 3:12). The Gemara asks: And in the First Temple era was there really no baseless hatred? Isn’t it written: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people, this will befall all the princes of Israel: They will be cast before the sword together with my people, therefore strike the thigh” (Ezekiel 21:17)? Rabbi Eliezer interpreted this verse and said: These are people who eat and drink with each other, and stab each other with verbal barbs. Apparently, even those who were close were filled with hatred toward one another. The Gemara answers: That behavior was found only among the princes of Israel, as it is written: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people”; and it was taught in a baraita: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people”; one might have thought that this unsavory trait was common to all. Therefore, the verse states: “This will befall all the princes of Israel.” It was only the leaders of the nation who harbored baseless hatred for each other; the people of the nation as a whole did not hate one another. § 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. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The fingernails of the former are preferable to the belly of the latter. Reish Lakish said to him: On the contrary, the latter were superior; even though there is subjugation by the kingdoms, they are engaged in Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: The Temple will prove that the former were superior, as it was restored to the former. The Second Temple was constructed after the destruction of the first. However, after the destruction of the Second Temple, it was not restored to the latter. Apparently, the former were superior to the latter. Similarly, the Sages asked Rabbi Elazar: Are the former greater or are the latter greater? He said to them: Look to the Temple and see if it has been restored, as it was to our predecessors. Some say the exchange was slightly different: He said to them: The Temple is your witness. The restoration of the Temple after the destruction of the First Temple, attests to the fact that the former generation was greater. Reish Lakish was swimming in the Jordan River when Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and gave him a hand to help him out. Reish Lakish said to him: My God! I hate you Babylonians, as it is written: “If she be a wall we will build a silver turret upon her, if she be a door we will cover her with boards of cedar” (Song of Songs 8:9). This is the meaning of the verse as it applies to the Jewish people: Had you rendered yourselves a solid bloc like a wall and all ascended to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra, you would have been likened to silver, which rot does not infest, in the sense that you would have merited experiencing the Divine Presence in all its glory. Now that you ascended like doors, and only some of you came to Eretz Yisrael, you are likened to cedar, which rot infests, and you merit experiencing only partial revelation of the Divine Presence. The Gemara asks: What rot infests cedar? Ulla said: It is sasmagor, a type of worm. The Gemara asks: What does sasmagor have to do with the Divine Presence during the Second Temple era? Rabbi Abba said: Just as little remains from a cedar tree infested by this worm, similarly, all that remained from the Divine Presence during the Second Temple period was a Divine Voice, as it was taught in a baraita: After the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, the Divine Spirit of prophetic revelation departed from the Jewish people, and they were still utilizing a Divine Voice, which they heard as an echo of prophecy. The Gemara asks: And would Reish Lakish speak with Rabba bar bar Ḥana in public? Just as Rabbi Elazar, who was the master of Eretz Yisrael in wisdom and character, and nevertheless, Reish Lakish would not speak with him in public, as Reish Lakish was sparing in his speech and extended friendship to only a select few prominent, righteous people, to the extent that a person to whom Reish Lakish was seen speaking in the marketplace, one would give him a loan and do business with him without witnesses; would he have spoken with Rabba bar bar Ḥana? Rav Pappa said: Cast a man between them, and say that the incident did not involve Reish Lakish and Rabba bar bar Ḥana. It was either Reish Lakish bathing in the river and Ze’iri, the prominent Babylonian Sage, who extended him a hand, or it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who was in the river and Rabbi Elazar extended a hand to him. In any event, when the Sage who heard what Reish Lakish said came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and related it, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That is not the reason; even had they all ascended in the days of Ezra, the Divine Presence would not have rested in the Second Temple, as it is written: “God will enlarge Japheth, and dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27).
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]. With regard to bloodshed it is written: “Moreover, Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another” (II Kings 21:16). 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. The Gemara continues: They were wicked; however, they put their faith in the Holy One, Blessed be He. With that statement we have come to the First Temple era, about which it is written: “Her chiefs judge for bribes, her priests give rulings for a fee, and her prophets divine for pay; yet they rely on the Lord, saying: The Lord is in our midst, no tragedy will overtake us” (Micah 3:11). At least the final portion of the verse was to their credit. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought upon them three decrees corresponding to their three wicked sins, as it is stated: “Therefore, due to you Zion will be plowed as a field, Jerusalem will become heaps of ruins, and the Temple Mount will be a like shrine in the woods” (Micah 3:12). The Gemara asks: And in the First Temple era was there really no baseless hatred? Isn’t it written: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people, this will befall all the princes of Israel: They will be cast before the sword together with my people, therefore strike the thigh” (Ezekiel 21:17)? Rabbi Eliezer interpreted this verse and said: These are people who eat and drink with each other, and stab each other with verbal barbs. Apparently, even those who were close were filled with hatred toward one another. The Gemara answers: That behavior was found only among the princes of Israel, as it is written: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people”; and it was taught in a baraita: “Cry and wail, son of man, for this will befall my people”; one might have thought that this unsavory trait was common to all. Therefore, the verse states: “This will befall all the princes of Israel.” It was only the leaders of the nation who harbored baseless hatred for each other; the people of the nation as a whole did not hate one another. § 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. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The fingernails of the former are preferable to the belly of the latter. Reish Lakish said to him: On the contrary, the latter were superior; even though there is subjugation by the kingdoms, they are engaged in Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: The Temple will prove that the former were superior, as it was restored to the former. The Second Temple was constructed after the destruction of the first. However, after the destruction of the Second Temple, it was not restored to the latter. Apparently, the former were superior to the latter. Similarly, the Sages asked Rabbi Elazar: Are the former greater or are the latter greater? He said to them: Look to the Temple and see if it has been restored, as it was to our predecessors. Some say the exchange was slightly different: He said to them: The Temple is your witness. The restoration of the Temple after the destruction of the First Temple, attests to the fact that the former generation was greater. Reish Lakish was swimming in the Jordan River when Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and gave him a hand to help him out. Reish Lakish said to him: My God! I hate you Babylonians, as it is written: “If she be a wall we will build a silver turret upon her, if she be a door we will cover her with boards of cedar” (Song of Songs 8:9). This is the meaning of the verse as it applies to the Jewish people: Had you rendered yourselves a solid bloc like a wall and all ascended to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra, you would have been likened to silver, which rot does not infest, in the sense that you would have merited experiencing the Divine Presence in all its glory. Now that you ascended like doors, and only some of you came to Eretz Yisrael, you are likened to cedar, which rot infests, and you merit experiencing only partial revelation of the Divine Presence. The Gemara asks: What rot infests cedar? Ulla said: It is sasmagor, a type of worm. The Gemara asks: What does sasmagor have to do with the Divine Presence during the Second Temple era? Rabbi Abba said: Just as little remains from a cedar tree infested by this worm, similarly, all that remained from the Divine Presence during the Second Temple period was a Divine Voice, as it was taught in a baraita: After the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, the Divine Spirit of prophetic revelation departed from the Jewish people, and they were still utilizing a Divine Voice, which they heard as an echo of prophecy. The Gemara asks: And would Reish Lakish speak with Rabba bar bar Ḥana in public? Just as Rabbi Elazar, who was the master of Eretz Yisrael in wisdom and character, and nevertheless, Reish Lakish would not speak with him in public, as Reish Lakish was sparing in his speech and extended friendship to only a select few prominent, righteous people, to the extent that a person to whom Reish Lakish was seen speaking in the marketplace, one would give him a loan and do business with him without witnesses; would he have spoken with Rabba bar bar Ḥana? Rav Pappa said: Cast a man between them, and say that the incident did not involve Reish Lakish and Rabba bar bar Ḥana. It was either Reish Lakish bathing in the river and Ze’iri, the prominent Babylonian Sage, who extended him a hand, or it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who was in the river and Rabbi Elazar extended a hand to him. In any event, when the Sage who heard what Reish Lakish said came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and related it, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That is not the reason; even had they all ascended in the days of Ezra, the Divine Presence would not have rested in the Second Temple, as it is written: “God will enlarge Japheth, and dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27).
(ד) הַצּוּר֙ תָּמִ֣ים פָּעֳל֔וֹ כִּ֥י כָל־דְּרָכָ֖יו מִשְׁפָּ֑ט אֵ֤ל אֱמוּנָה֙ וְאֵ֣ין עָ֔וֶל צַדִּ֥יק וְיָשָׁ֖ר הֽוּא׃
(4) The Rock!—His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just; A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He.
(יג) כְּשֶׁרָאָה שֶׁהֵם פָּרִים וְרָבִים, גָּזַר עַל הַזְּכָרִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות א, טו): וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַמְיַלְּדֹת וגו'. מִי הָיוּ הַמְיַלְּדוֹת, רַב אָמַר כַּלָּה וַחֲמוֹתָהּ, יוֹכֶבֶד וֶאֱלִישֶׁבַע בַּת עֲמִינָדָב. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר, אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, יוֹכֶבֶד וּמִרְיָם. וְלֹא הָיוּ לְמִרְיָם אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁאַהֲרֹן גָּדוֹל מִמּשֶׁה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה הוֹלֶכֶת הָיְתָה עִם יוֹכֶבֶד אִמָּהּ וְעוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ, וְהָיְתָה זְרִיזָה, שֶׁעַד שֶׁהַתִּינוֹק קָטָן הוּא נִכָּר. הוּא שֶׁאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה (משלי כ, יא): גַּם בְּמַעֲלָלָיו יִתְנַכֶּר נָעַר וגו'. אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה, שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשַׁפֶּרֶת אֶת הַתִּינוֹק, כְּשֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מָלֵא דָּם, פּוּעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה נוֹפַעַת יַיִן בַּתִּינוֹק אַחַר אִמָּהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שִׁפְרָה, שֶׁפָּרוּ וְרָבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עָלֶיהָ. פּוּעָה, שֶׁהָיְתָה מַפִּיעָה אֶת הַתִּינוֹק כְּשֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים מֵת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שִׁפְרָה, שֶׁשִּׁפְּרָה מַעֲשֶׂיהָ לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, פּוּעָה, שֶׁהוֹפִיעָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאלֹהִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, פּוּעָה, שֶׁהוֹפִיעָה פָּנִים כְּנֶגֶד פַּרְעֹה, וְזָקְפָה חָטְמָהּ בּוֹ, וְאָמְרָה לוֹ, אוֹי לוֹ לְאוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הָאֱלֹהִים לִפָּרַע מִמֶּנּוּ. נִתְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ חֵמָה לְהָרְגָהּ. שִׁפְרָה, שֶׁהָיְתָה מְשַׁפֶּרֶת עַל דִּבְרֵי בִתָּהּ וּמְפַיֶּסֶת עָלֶיהָ. אָמְרָה לוֹ, אַתָּה מַשְׁגִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ, תִּינֹקֶת הִיא וְאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת כְּלוּם. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר, שִׁפְרָה, שֶׁהֶעֱמִידָה יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאלֹהִים, שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָם נִבְרְאוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶם (איוב כו, יג): בְּרוּחוֹ שָׁמַיִם שִׁפְרָה. פּוּעָה, שֶׁהוֹפִיעָה פָּנִים כְּנֶגֶד אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהָיָה עַמְרָם רֹאשׁ סַנְהֶדְּרִין בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁגָּזַר פַּרְעֹה וְאָמַר (שמות א, כב): כָּל הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד, אָמַר עַמְרָם וְלָרִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹלִידִים, מִיָּד הוֹצִיא אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד וּפֵרַשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, וְגֵרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא מְעֻבֶּרֶת מִשְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, עָמְדוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשׁוּ אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. אָמְרָה לוֹ בִּתּוֹ גְּזֵרָתְךָ קָשָׁה מִשֶּׁל פַּרְעֹה, שֶׁפַּרְעֹה לֹא גָזַר אֶלָּא עַל הַזְּכָרִים, וְאַתָּה עַל הַזְּכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. פַּרְעֹה רָשָׁע הוּא וּגְזֵרָתוֹ סָפֵק מִתְקַיֶּמֶת סָפֵק אֵינָהּ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת, אֲבָל אַתָּה צַדִּיק וּגְזֵרָתְךָ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת. עָמַד הוּא וְהֶחֱזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, עָמְדוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֶחֱזִירוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם. הֱוֵי פּוּעָה, שֶׁהוֹפִיעָה פָּנִים כְּנֶגֶד אָבִיהָ.
(א) ויקח את בת לוי. פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים, וְאַף הִיא נֶהֶפְכָה לִהְיוֹת נַעֲרָה; וּבַת ק"ל שָׁנָה הָיְתָה, שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּבוֹאָם לְמִצְרַיִם בֵּין הַחוֹמוֹת, וּמָאתַיִם וָעֶשֶׂר נִשְׁתַּהוּ שָׁם, וּכְשֶׁיָּצְאוּ הָיָה מֹשֶׁה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיְתָה בַּת מֵאָה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים וְקוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ בַּת לֵוִי (עי' סוטה י"ב, בבא בתרא קי"ט ושמות רבה):
(1) ויקח את בת לוי AND HE HAD TAKEN TO WIFE A DAUGHTER OF LEVI — He had lived apart from her in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree that the children should, on their birth, be drowned. Now he took her back and entered into a second marriage with her, and she also physically became young again. For really she was then 130 years old — for she was born “between the walls” when they were about to enter Egypt (cf. Rashi on Genesis 46:15) and they (the Israelites) remained there 210 years, and when they left Egypt Moses was 80 years old; consequently when she became pregnant with him she was 130 years old — and yet Scripture calls her בת לוי a young daughter of Levi (Sota 12a; Bava Batra 119b).
(ז) וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ׃ (ס)
(7) Be fertile, then, and increase; abound on the earth and increase on it.”
(ב) מַה־יָּפ֧וּ פְעָמַ֛יִךְ בַּנְּעָלִ֖ים בַּת־נָדִ֑יב חַמּוּקֵ֣י יְרֵכַ֔יִךְ כְּמ֣וֹ חֲלָאִ֔ים מַעֲשֵׂ֖ה יְדֵ֥י אָמָּֽן׃
(2) How lovely are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, The work of a master’s hand.
כשם שניסוכו בקדושה כך שריפתו בקדושה מאי משמע אמר רבינא אתיא קדש קדש כתיב הכא (במדבר כח, ז) בקדש הסך נסך וכתיב התם (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כמאן אזלא הא (דתניא) נסכים בתחילה מועלין בהן ירדו לשיתין אין מועלין בהן לימא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק היא דאי רבנן הא נחתו להו לתהום אפילו תימא רבנן בדאיקלט ואיכא דאמרי לימא רבנן היא ולא ר' אלעזר בר צדוק דאי רבי אלעזר אכתי בקדושתייהו קיימי אפילו תימא רבי אלעזר אין לך דבר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו אמר ריש לקיש בזמן שמנסכין יין על גבי מזבח פוקקין את השיתין לקיים מה שנאמר בקדש הסך נסך שכר לה' מאי משמע אמר רב פפא שכר לשון שתיה לשון שביעה לשון שכרות אמר רב פפא שמע מינה כי שבע איניש חמרא מגרוניה שבע אמר רבא צורבא מרבנן דלא נפישא ליה חמרא ליגמע גמועי רבא אכסא דברכתא אגמע גמועי דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב מה יפו פעמותיהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנא' (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים תנא דבי רב ענן מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) חמוקי ירכיך למה נמשלו דברי תורה כירך לומר לך מה ירך בסתר אף דברי תורה בסתר והיינו דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (מיכה ו, ח) הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה ה' דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלהיך עשות משפט זה הדין ואהבת חסד זו גמילות חסדים והצנע לכת עם אלהיך זו הוצאת המת והכנסת כלה לחופה והלא דברים ק"ו ומה דברים שדרכן לעשותן בפרהסיא אמרה תורה הצנע לכת דברים שדרכן לעשותן בצנעא על אחת כמה וכמה א"ר אלעזר גדול העושה צדקה יותר מכל הקרבנות שנאמר (משלי כא, ג) עשה צדקה ומשפט נבחר לה' מזבח וא"ר אלעזר גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה שנאמר (הושע י, יב) זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד אם אדם זורע ספק אוכל ספק אינו אוכל אדם קוצר ודאי אוכל וא"ר אלעזר אין צדקה משתלמת אלא לפי חסד שבה שנאמר זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד ת"ר בשלשה דברים גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה צדקה בממונו גמילות חסדים בין בגופו בין בממונו צדקה לעניים גמילות חסדים בין לעניים בין לעשירים צדקה לחיים גמילות חסדים בין לחיים בין למתים וא"ר אלעזר כל העושה צדקה ומשפט כאילו מילא כל העולם כולו חסד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ה) אוהב צדקה ומשפט חסד ה' מלאה הארץ שמא תאמר כל הבא לקפוץ קופץ ת"ל (תהלים לו, ח) מה יקר חסדך אלהים (חסד ה' מלאה הארץ) וגו' יכול אף ירא שמים כן ת"ל (תהלים קג, יז) וחסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו א"ר חמא בר פפא כל אדם שיש עליו חן בידוע שהוא ירא שמים שנא' חסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו וא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כו) פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה וכי יש תורה של חסד יש תורה שאינה של חסד אלא תורה לשמה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא לשמה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד איכא דאמרי תורה ללמדה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא ללמדה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד: כמעשהו בחול כו': ואמאי נייתי במקודשת אמר זעירי קסבר אין שיעור למים וכלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת
just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too must its burning be in sanctity. From where may it be inferred that this is referring to burning? Ravina said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term sanctity written with regard to libations and sanctity written with regard to leftover offerings. It is written here, with regard to libations: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation” (Numbers 28:7), and it is written there, with regard to leftover offerings: “You shall burn the leftovers in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sanctity” (Exodus 29:34). Through the verbal analogy it is derived that leftover libations must also be burned. The Gemara notes: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this mishna? With regard to libations, initially, prior to being poured, one can misuse consecrated property with them, as is the case with all consecrated items. However, once they descended to the drainpipes, one does not violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property with them, because the mitzva was already fulfilled. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who holds that the libations did not descend to the depths but would collect between the ramp and the altar and would be collected once every seventy years. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, how could the libations be misused? Didn’t they already descend to the depths through the drainpipes? The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it could be referring to a case where some of the wine landed outside the drainpipes and was collected in the space between the ramp and the altar. And some say a different version of this exchange. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then the wine that collected between the ramp and the altar remains in its sanctity, as it must be burned, and the prohibition against misuse would still apply. The Gemara rejects this: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed with which one can violate the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Reish Lakish said: When they pour wine onto the altar, they plug the top of the drainpipes so that the wine does not descend to the depths, in order to fulfill that which is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink [shekhar] unto the Lord” (Numbers 28:7). The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this is referring to plugging the drainpipes? Rav Pappa said: Shekhar is an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. In order to underscore all three aspects of the libations, the space between the altar and the ramp would fill with wine. Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this that when a person is satiated from drinking wine, it is from his throat being filled with wine that he is satiated. Unlike food, wine does not satiate a person when it fills his stomach. Rava said: Therefore, let a young Torah scholar, who does not have much wine, swallow his wine in large swigs, filling his throat each time, as he will thereby maximize his enjoyment. And Rava himself, when drinking a cup of blessing, would swallow large swigs so as to drink the wine accompanying the mitzva in an optimal manner. § Apropos the homiletic interpretations of the verses from Song of Songs with regard to the drainpipes, the Gemara cites additional interpretations. Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter” (Song of Songs 7:2)? How beautiful are the feet of the Jewish people at the time when they ascend to Jerusalem for the Festival. “O prince’s daughter”; this is referring to the daughter of Abraham our Patriarch, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10). The verse calls the Jewish people the people of the God of Abraham and not the God of Isaac and Jacob. Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Abraham? Rather than referring to the three Patriarchs, the verse is referring to the God of Abraham, who was first of the converts, and therefore it is reasonable for the princes of other nations to gather around him. In the school of Rav Anan it was taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The hidden of your thighs” (Song of Songs 7:2)? Why are matters of Torah likened to a thigh? It is to tell you that just as the thigh is always concealed, covered by clothes, so too, matters of Torah are optimal when recited in private and not in public. 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. § 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. 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.” 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. 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). 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. § The mishna continues: As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, except that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated and would place it in the Temple chamber, and water would be drawn from there on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And why should one do so? Let him bring the water in a consecrated barrel. Ze’iri said: The tanna in the mishna holds that there is no requisite measure for the water to be poured for libation, and therefore more than three log could be consecrated; and that Temple vessels consecrate their content if it is fit to be consecrated, even without intent to consecrate it.
(א) וּבֹ֨עַז עָלָ֣ה הַשַּׁעַר֮ וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב שָׁם֒ וְהִנֵּ֨ה הַגֹּאֵ֤ל עֹבֵר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֶּר־בֹּ֔עַז וַיֹּ֛אמֶר ס֥וּרָה שְׁבָה־פֹּ֖ה פְּלֹנִ֣י אַלְמֹנִ֑י וַיָּ֖סַר וַיֵּשֵֽׁב׃ (ב) וַיִּקַּ֞ח עֲשָׂרָ֧ה אֲנָשִׁ֛ים מִזִּקְנֵ֥י הָעִ֖יר וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹ֑ה וַיֵּשֵֽׁבוּ׃ (ג) וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לַגֹּאֵ֔ל חֶלְקַת֙ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְאָחִ֖ינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶ֑לֶךְ מָכְרָ֣ה נָעֳמִ֔י הַשָּׁ֖בָה מִשְּׂדֵ֥ה מוֹאָֽב׃ (ד) וַאֲנִ֨י אָמַ֜רְתִּי אֶגְלֶ֧ה אָזְנְךָ֣ לֵאמֹ֗ר קְ֠נֵה נֶ֥גֶד הַֽיֹּשְׁבִים֮ וְנֶ֣גֶד זִקְנֵ֣י עַמִּי֒ אִם־תִּגְאַל֙ גְּאָ֔ל וְאִם־לֹ֨א יִגְאַ֜ל הַגִּ֣ידָה לִּ֗י ואדע [וְאֵֽדְעָה֙] כִּ֣י אֵ֤ין זוּלָֽתְךָ֙ לִגְא֔וֹל וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אָנֹכִ֥י אֶגְאָֽל׃ (ה) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בֹּ֔עַז בְּיוֹם־קְנוֹתְךָ֥ הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד נָעֳמִ֑י וּ֠מֵאֵת ר֣וּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּ֤ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙ קניתי [קָנִ֔יתָה] לְהָקִ֥ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֖ת עַל־נַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃ (ו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַגֹּאֵ֗ל לֹ֤א אוּכַל֙ לגאול־[לִגְאָל־] לִ֔י פֶּן־אַשְׁחִ֖ית אֶת־נַחֲלָתִ֑י גְּאַל־לְךָ֤ אַתָּה֙ אֶת־גְּאֻלָּתִ֔י כִּ֥י לֹא־אוּכַ֖ל לִגְאֹֽל׃ (ז) וְזֹאת֩ לְפָנִ֨ים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל עַל־הַגְּאוּלָּ֤ה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה֙ לְקַיֵּ֣ם כָּל־דָּבָ֔ר שָׁלַ֥ף אִ֛ישׁ נַעֲל֖וֹ וְנָתַ֣ן לְרֵעֵ֑הוּ וְזֹ֥את הַתְּעוּדָ֖ה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (ח) וַיֹּ֧אמֶר הַגֹּאֵ֛ל לְבֹ֖עַז קְנֵה־לָ֑ךְ וַיִּשְׁלֹ֖ף נַעֲלֽוֹ׃ (ט) וַיֹּאמֶר֩ בֹּ֨עַז לַזְּקֵנִ֜ים וְכָל־הָעָ֗ם עֵדִ֤ים אַתֶּם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֤י קָנִ֙יתִי֙ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֶֽאֱלִימֶ֔לֶךְ וְאֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְכִלְי֖וֹן וּמַחְל֑וֹן מִיַּ֖ד נָעֳמִֽי׃ (י) וְגַ֣ם אֶת־ר֣וּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה֩ אֵ֨שֶׁת מַחְל֜וֹן קָנִ֧יתִי לִ֣י לְאִשָּׁ֗ה לְהָקִ֤ים שֵׁם־הַמֵּת֙ עַל־נַ֣חֲלָת֔וֹ וְלֹא־יִכָּרֵ֧ת שֵׁם־הַמֵּ֛ת מֵעִ֥ם אֶחָ֖יו וּמִשַּׁ֣עַר מְקוֹמ֑וֹ עֵדִ֥ים אַתֶּ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם׃ (יא) וַיֹּ֨אמְר֜וּ כָּל־הָעָ֧ם אֲשֶׁר־בַּשַּׁ֛עַר וְהַזְּקֵנִ֖ים עֵדִ֑ים יִתֵּן֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֶֽת־הָאִשָּׁ֜ה הַבָּאָ֣ה אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֗ךָ כְּרָחֵ֤ל ׀ וּכְלֵאָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר בָּנ֤וּ שְׁתֵּיהֶם֙ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַעֲשֵׂה־חַ֣יִל בְּאֶפְרָ֔תָה וּקְרָא־שֵׁ֖ם בְּבֵ֥ית לָֽחֶם׃ (יב) וִיהִ֤י בֵֽיתְךָ֙ כְּבֵ֣ית פֶּ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יָלְדָ֥ה תָמָ֖ר לִֽיהוּדָ֑ה מִן־הַזֶּ֗רַע אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֤ן יְהוָה֙ לְךָ֔ מִן־הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃ (יג) וַיִּקַּ֨ח בֹּ֤עַז אֶת־רוּת֙ וַתְּהִי־ל֣וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֖א אֵלֶ֑יהָ וַיִּתֵּ֨ן יְהוָ֥ה לָ֛הּ הֵרָי֖וֹן וַתֵּ֥לֶד בֵּֽן׃ (יד) וַתֹּאמַ֤רְנָה הַנָּשִׁים֙ אֶֽל־נָעֳמִ֔י בָּר֣וּךְ יְהוָ֔ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א הִשְׁבִּ֥ית לָ֛ךְ גֹּאֵ֖ל הַיּ֑וֹם וְיִקָּרֵ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (טו) וְהָ֤יָה לָךְ֙ לְמֵשִׁ֣יב נֶ֔פֶשׁ וּלְכַלְכֵּ֖ל אֶת־שֵׂיבָתֵ֑ךְ כִּ֣י כַלָּתֵ֤ךְ אֲֽשֶׁר־אֲהֵבַ֙תֶךְ֙ יְלָדַ֔תּוּ אֲשֶׁר־הִיא֙ ט֣וֹבָה לָ֔ךְ מִשִּׁבְעָ֖ה בָּנִֽים׃ (טז) וַתִּקַּ֨ח נָעֳמִ֤י אֶת־הַיֶּ֙לֶד֙ וַתְּשִׁתֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקָ֔הּ וַתְּהִי־ל֖וֹ לְאֹמֶֽנֶת׃ (יז) וַתִּקְרֶאנָה֩ ל֨וֹ הַשְּׁכֵנ֥וֹת שֵׁם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר יֻלַּד־בֵּ֖ן לְנָעֳמִ֑י וַתִּקְרֶ֤אנָֽה שְׁמוֹ֙ עוֹבֵ֔ד ה֥וּא אֲבִי־יִשַׁ֖י אֲבִ֥י דָוִֽד׃ (פ) (יח) וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְד֣וֹת פָּ֔רֶץ פֶּ֖רֶץ הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־חֶצְרֽוֹן׃ (יט) וְחֶצְרוֹן֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־רָ֔ם וְרָ֖ם הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־עַמִּֽינָדָֽב׃ (כ) וְעַמִּֽינָדָב֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־נַחְשׁ֔וֹן וְנַחְשׁ֖וֹן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־שַׂלְמָֽה׃ (כא) וְשַׂלְמוֹן֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־בֹּ֔עַז וּבֹ֖עַז הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־עוֹבֵֽד׃ (כב) וְעֹבֵד֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־יִשָׁ֔י וְיִשַׁ֖י הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־דָּוִֽד׃
(1) Meanwhile, Boaz had gone to the gate and sat down there. And now the redeemer whom Boaz had mentioned passed by. He called, “Come over and sit down here, So-and-so!” And he came over and sat down. (2) Then [Boaz] took ten elders of the town and said, “Be seated here”; and they sat down. (3) He said to the redeemer, “Naomi, now returned from the country of Moab, must sell the piece of land which belonged to our kinsman Elimelech. (4) I thought I should disclose the matter to you and say: Acquire it in the presence of those seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you are willing to redeem it, redeem! But if you will not redeem, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you.” “I am willing to redeem it,” he replied. (5) Boaz continued, “When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate.” (6) The redeemer replied, “Then I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own estate. You take over my right of redemption, for I am unable to exercise it.” (7) Now this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Such was the practice in Israel. (8) So when the redeemer said to Boaz, “Acquire for yourself,” he drew off his sandal. (9) And Boaz said to the elders and to the rest of the people, “You are witnesses today that I am acquiring from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. (10) I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, that the name of the deceased may not disappear from among his kinsmen and from the gate of his home town. You are witnesses today.” (11) All the people at the gate and the elders answered, “We are. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built up the House of Israel! Prosper in Ephrathah and perpetuate your name in Bethlehem! (12) And may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah—through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman.” (13) So Boaz married Ruth; she became his wife, and he cohabited with her. The LORD let her conceive, and she bore a son. (14) And the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today! May his name be perpetuated in Israel! (15) He will renew your life and sustain your old age; for he is born of your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons.” (16) Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother, (17) and the women neighbors gave him a name, saying, “A son is born to Naomi!” They named him Obed; he was the father of Jesse, father of David. (18) This is the line of Perez: Perez begot Hezron, (19) Hezron begot Ram, Ram begot Ammi-nadab, (20) Amminadab begot Nahshon, Nahshon begot Salmon, (21) Salmon begot Boaz, Boaz begot Obed, (22) Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David.
ואקדש לך מקודשת מדין ערב ערב לאו אף ע"ג דלא מטי הנאה לידיה קא משעביד נפשיה האי איתתא נמי אע"ג דלא מטי הנאה לידה קא משעבדא ומקניא נפשה הילך מנה והתקדשי לפלוני מקודשת מדין עבד כנעני עבד כנעני לאו אף ע"ג דלא קא חסר ולא מידי קא קני נפשיה האי גברא נמי אע"ג דלא קא חסר ולא מידי קא קני לה להאי איתתא תן מנה לפלוני ואקדש אני לו מקודשת מדין שניהם ערב לאו אף ע"ג דלא קא מטי הנאה לידיה קא משעבד נפשיה האי איתתא נמי אע"ג דלא קא מטי הנאה לידה קא מקניא נפשה מי דמי ערב האי דקא קני ליה קא חסר ממונא האי גברא קא קני לה להאי איתתא ולא קא חסר ולא מידי עבד כנעני יוכיח דלא קא חסר ממונא וקא קני נפשיה מי דמי התם הך דקא מקני קא קני הכא האי איתתא קא מקניא נפשה ולא קא קניא ולא מידי ערב יוכיח אע"ג דלא קא מטי הנאה לידיה משעבד נפשיה בעי רבא הילך מנה ואקדש אני לך מהו אמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא מקודשת אמר ליה רב אשי למר זוטרא אם כן הוה ליה נכסים שיש להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שאין להם אחריות ואנן איפכא תנן נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות בכסף בשטר ובחזקה אמר ליה מי סברת דאמרה ליה אגב הכא באדם חשוב עסקינן דבההיא הנאה דקא מקבל מתנה מינה גמרה ומקניא ליה נפשה איתמר נמי משמיה דרבא וכן לענין ממונא וצריכא דאי אשמועינן קידושין משום דהא איתתא ניחא לה בכל דהו כדריש לקיש דאמר ר"ל טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו אבל ממונא אימא לא ואי אשמועינן ממונא משום דאיתיהיב למחילה אבל קידושין אימא לא צריכא : אמר רבא התקדשי לי לחציי מקודשת חצייך מקודשת לי אינה מקודשת אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא חצייך מקודשת לי דאינה מקודשת אשה אמר רחמנא ולא חצי אשה ה"נ איש אמר רחמנא ולא חצי איש א"ל הכי השתא התם איתתא לבי תרי לא חזיא אלא גברא מי לא חזי לבי תרי וה"ק לה דאי בעינא למינסב אחריתי נסיבנא אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא וניפשטו לה קידושי בכולה מי לא תניא האומר רגלה של זו עולה תהא כולה עולה ואפי' למ"ד אין כולה עולה ה"מ היכא דמקדיש דבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל מקדיש דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו הויא כולה עולה מי דמי התם בהמה הכא דעת אחרת הא לא דמיא אלא להא דאמר רבי יוחנן בהמה של שני שותפין הקדיש חציה וחזר ולקחה והקדישה קדושה ואינה קריבה ועושה תמורה ותמורתה כיוצא בה שמע מינה תלת
and I will be betrothed to you by means of these one hundred dinars that you give to that individual, she is betrothed, as derived from the halakha of a guarantor. How so? With regard to a guarantor, is it not the case that he commits himself to repaying the debt even though he receives no benefit, as the money from the loan is given to the debtor? And with regard to this woman too, even though she receives no benefit, as the one hundred dinars are given to someone else, nevertheless she commits and transfers herself to the man who gives the money. The Gemara discusses a similar case: If a man gives one hundred dinars to a woman and says to her: Here are one hundred dinars for you, and with this money you become betrothed to so-and-so, she is betrothed, as derived from the halakha of emancipating a Canaanite slave. With regard to a Canaanite slave, is it not the case that he acquires himself and is freed when someone gives his master money to emancipate the slave, even though he loses nothing of his own? With regard to this man too, i.e., the third party, even though he loses nothing of his own, he acquires this woman by means of the other man’s payment. The Gemara discusses a similar case: A woman says to a man: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so and I will be betrothed to him. If he gives the money, she is betrothed, as is derived from a combination of the halakha of both of these cases, that of a guarantor and a Canaanite slave. How so? With regard to a guarantor, is it not the case that he commits himself to repaying the debt even though he receives no benefit? With regard to this woman too, even though she receives no benefit, nevertheless she commits and transfers herself. This consideration alone is insufficient, as one could still ask: Are these cases comparable? In the case of a guarantor, the one who acquires the item in question, which in this case is the commitment of the guarantor, is the one who loses money when he gives the loan. By contrast, in the situation at hand, this man, the third party, acquires the woman and loses nothing of his own. Therefore, the Gemara comments: The emancipating of a Canaanite slave can prove it, as he does not lose his own money and nevertheless he acquires himself. This consideration alone is insufficient, as one could still ask: Are these cases comparable? There, with regard to a slave, the one who transfers ownership is the one who acquires it, as the master transfers ownership of the slave to the slave, and he himself acquires the money from the donor. Here, this woman transfers herself and she does not acquire anything. Rather, in this regard the case of a guarantor can prove it, as even though he receives no benefit from the creditor, nevertheless, he commits himself, just like the woman in this case. In this manner one can derive that the woman is betrothed in this case from a combination of those two halakhot. Rava raises a dilemma: If a woman said to a man: Here are one hundred dinars and I will be betrothed to you, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: She is betrothed. Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: If so, this is an example of a case in which property that serves as a guarantee is acquired with property that is not guaranteed. Land is property that serves as a guarantee, and, as derived by way of a verbal analogy, the same applies to people. Money is property that does not serve as a guarantee. Through his acquisition of the money, this man acquires the woman as well. Rav Ashi asks: But we learned the opposite in a mishna (26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired with property that serves as a guarantee through giving money, through giving a document, or through taking possession of them. By contrast, property that serves as a guarantee cannot be acquired by means of acquiring property that does not serve as a guarantee. Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: Do you maintain that she wants her acquisition to be performed by means of money, i.e., he will acquire her as well through monetary acquisition? Not so, as here we are dealing with an important man, as, due to the benefit she receives from the fact that he consents to accept a gift from her, she agrees to transfer herself to him. The Gemara reverts back to the earlier discussion with regard to the derivation from the cases of a guarantor and a Canaanite slave. It was also stated in the name of Rava: And similarly, with regard to monetary matters, one can conduct a valid acquisition in the modes derived from the cases of a guarantor and a Canaanite slave. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to both betrothal and monetary acquisitions. The Gemara elaborates: As, had he taught us only the case of betrothal, one would have said that this halakha applies specifically in that case, because a woman is amenable to be betrothed with any form of benefit, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said: There is a popular saying among women: It is better to sit as two bodies, i.e., be married, than to sit alone like a widow. A woman prefers any type of husband to being left alone. Consequently, she would be willing to commit herself to betrothal by any form of benefit. But with regard to monetary matters, one might say that these types of unusual acquisitions are not effective. And conversely, if he had taught us only that this is the halakha with regard to monetary matters, one might have said that it applies solely to a case of this kind, because a monetary claim can be waived. One can relinquish his claim to money that is in someone else’s possession without receiving anything in return. But with regard to betrothal, which does not entirely depend on the will and agreement of the woman, as she must actually receive her betrothal money, one might say that the halakhot of a guarantor and a Canaanite slave are not comparable to this case. Therefore, it is necessary to state that this is the halakha in both cases. § Rava says that if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to half of me, she is betrothed. But if he said to her: Half of you is betrothed to me, she is not betrothed. Abaye said to Rava: What is different between the two cases that if he says: Half of you is betrothed to me, she is not betrothed? Is it because the Merciful One states: “When a man takes a woman, and marries her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), indicating he must take “a woman,” and not half a woman? So too, the Merciful One states: “A man,” and not half a man. Rava said to Abaye: How can these cases be compared? There, a woman is not eligible for two men. If one attempts to betroth half a woman it means he wants to leave her other half for someone else. This is impossible, as a woman cannot be married to two men. But isn’t a man eligible to marry two women? And when he declares: Be betrothed to half of me, this is what he is saying to her: If I wish to marry another woman, I will marry another woman. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But in a case where he says to her: Half of you is betrothed to me, let the betrothal spread through all of her, and she will be completely betrothed. Isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Temura 1:5) that if one says about an animal: The leg of this animal is a burnt-offering, all of it is a burnt-offering, as the sanctity of the leg spreads throughout the animal’s entire body? Mar Zutra adds: And even according to the one who says that it is not entirely a burnt-offering, that statement applies only where he consecrated the leg of the animal, which is not a matter upon which the animal’s life depends. It is possible for an animal to survive the removal of a leg. But if one consecrates a matter upon which the animal’s life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is a burnt-offering. Here too, as the woman cannot survive without half of her body, why doesn’t the betrothal spread throughout all of her? The Gemara rejects this opinion: Is it comparable? There, in the case of the animal, it involves a creature without intellectual capacity. Here, the issue depends on another mind, that of the woman herself. The woman must indicate that she wants the betrothal to be effective. This case is comparable only to that halakha which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an animal that belongs to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belonged to him, and he goes back and acquires the other half from his partner and consecrates the other half, it is consecrated, despite the fact that it was consecrated on two separate occasions. But although it is consecrated, it may not be sacrificed, because when he first sanctified it the animal was not fit to be sacrificed. The consecration does not spread throughout the entire animal without the consent of the other partner. This flaw cannot be remedied and the animal is permanently disqualified from being sacrificed as an offering. But, as it is consecrated now, this is enough to render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged with it a substitute. If one exchanges this animal with another, non-consecrated, animal, the second animal becomes consecrated as well. And yet its substitution is like it, i.e., it too is consecrated but may not be sacrificed either. The Gemara comments: One can learn from the statement three halakhot.
(י) אִם־אַחֶ֖רֶת יִֽקַּֽח־ל֑וֹ שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע׃
(10) If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
נוח לו לאדם שיבא על ספק אשת איש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מדדרש רבא דדרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים לה, טו) ובצלעי שמחו ונאספו קרעו ולא דמו אמר דוד לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע גלוי וידוע לפניך שאם היו מקרעים בשרי לא היה דמי שותת לארץ ולא עוד אלא אפילו בשעה שעוסקין בנגעים ואהלות אומרים לי דוד הבא על אשת איש מיתתו במה ואני אומר להם מיתתו בחנק ויש לו חלק לעוה"ב אבל המלבין את פני חבירו ברבים אין לו חלק לעוה"ב (ואמר) מר זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא ואמרי לה א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לכבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנ"ל מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, כה) היא מוצאת והיא שלחה אל חמיה אמר רב חננא בריה דרב אידי מאי דכתיב (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות אל תונהו אמר רב לעולם יהא אדם זהיר באונאת אשתו שמתוך שדמעתה מצויה אונאתה קרובה א"ר אלעזר מיום שנחרב בית המקדש ננעלו שערי תפלה שנאמר (איכה ג, ח) גם כי אזעק ואשוע שתם תפלתי ואע"פ ששערי תפלה ננעלו שערי דמעות לא ננעלו שנאמר (תהלים לט, יג) שמעה תפלתי ה' ושועתי האזינה אל דמעתי אל תחרש ואמר רב כל ההולך בעצת אשתו נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כה) רק לא היה כאחאב וגו' א"ל רב פפא לאביי והא אמרי אינשי איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש לה לא קשיא הא במילי דעלמא והא במילי דביתא לישנא אחרינא הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא אמר רב חסדא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה שנאמר (עמוס ז, ז) הנה ה' נצב על חומת אנך ובידו אנך א"ר אלעזר הכל נפרע בידי שליח חוץ מאונאה שנאמר ובידו אנך א"ר אבהו ג' אין הפרגוד ננעל בפניהם אונאה וגזל וע"ז אונאה דכתיב ובידו אנך גזל דכתיב (ירמיהו ו, ז) חמס ושוד ישמע בה על פני תמיד ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו סה, ג) העם המכעיסים אותי על פני תמיד [וגו'] אמר רב יהודה לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שאין מריבה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (תהלים קמז, יד) השם גבולך שלום חלב חטים ישביעך אמר רב פפא היינו דאמרי אינשי כמשלם שערי מכדא נקיש ואתי תיגרא בביתא ואמר רב חיננא בר פפא לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בתבואה בתוך ביתו שלא נקראו ישראל דלים אלא על עסקי תבואה שנאמר (שופטים ו, ג) והיה אם זרע ישראל וגו' וכתיב (שופטים ו, ד) ויחנו עליהם וגו' וכתיב (שופטים ו, ו) וידל ישראל מאד מפני מדין (וא"ר) חלבו לעולם יהא אדם זהיר בכבוד אשתו שאין ברכה מצויה בתוך ביתו של אדם אלא בשביל אשתו שנאמר (בראשית יב, טז) ולאברם הטיב בעבורה והיינו דאמר להו רבא לבני מחוזא אוקירו לנשייכו כי היכי דתתעתרו תנן התם חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר"א מטהר וחכמים מטמאין
It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease [damu]” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood [dami] would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting. And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e., halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression. And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25). § 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. Rabbi Elazar says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked, and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is stated in lament of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13). And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehenna, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (I Kings 21:25). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a popular proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of Rav maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters. 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. 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). Apropos the topic of how man should approach his household, Rav Yehuda says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as discord is found in a person’s house only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “He makes your borders peace; He gives you plenty with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If there is the finest wheat in your house, there will be peace there. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: When the barley is emptied from the jug, quarrel knocks and enters the house. And Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as the Jewish people were characterized as poor only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “And it was, if Israel sowed, and Midian and the children of the east ascended” (Judges 6:3); and it is written: “And they encamped against them and they destroyed the crops of the land” (Judges 6:4); and it is further written: “And Israel was greatly impoverished due to Midian” (Judges 6:6). 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. § Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven.
(יט) כַּ֭מַּיִם הַפָּנִ֣ים לַפָּנִ֑ים כֵּ֤ן לֵֽב־הָ֝אָדָ֗ם לָאָדָֽם׃
(19) As face answers to face in water, So does one man’s heart to another.
(יח) וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלָ֜יו יְהוּדָ֗ה וַיֹּאמֶר֮ בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ יְדַבֶּר־נָ֨א עַבְדְּךָ֤ דָבָר֙ בְּאָזְנֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י וְאַל־יִ֥חַר אַפְּךָ֖ בְּעַבְדֶּ֑ךָ כִּ֥י כָמ֖וֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה׃
(18) Then Judah went up to him and said, “Please, my lord, let your servant appeal to my lord, and do not be impatient with your servant, you who are the equal of Pharaoh.
(א) לְֽ֭תַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּ֣שׁ נִפְרָ֑ד בְּכָל־תּ֝וּשִׁיָּ֗ה יִתְגַּלָּֽע׃
(1) He who isolates himself pursues his desires; He disdains all competence.
הספרים הני אין כלי פשתן לא אמר ליה אביי מתני' אפילו דשאר מיני אמר בר הידיא לדידי חזי לי ימה של טבריה דמפקי לה משיכלי דמני כיתנא בחולא דמועדא מתקיף לה אביי מאן לימא לן דברצון חכמים עבדי דלמא שלא ברצון חכמים עבדי: מתני׳ ואלו כותבין במועד קדושי נשים וגיטין ושוברין דייתיקי מתנה ופרוזבולין איגרות שום ואיגרות מזון שטרי חליצה ומיאונים ושטרי בירורין גזרות בית דין ואיגרות של רשות: גמ׳ אמר שמואל מותר לארס אשה בחולו של מועד שמא יקדמנו אחר לימא מסייע ליה ואלו כותבין במועד קדושי נשים מאי לאו שטרי קדושין ממש לא שטרי פסיקתא וכדרב גידל אמר רב דאמר רב גידל אמר רב כמה אתה נותן לבנך כך וכך כמה אתה נותן לבתך כך וכך עמדו וקדשו קנו הן הן הדברים הנקנין באמירה לימא מסייע ליה אין נושאין נשים במועד לא בתולות ולא אלמנות ולא מיבמין מפני ששמחה היא לו הא לארס שרי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לארס דלא קעביד מצוה אלא אפילו לישא נמי דקא עביד מצוה אסור תא שמע דתנא דבי שמואל מארסין אבל לא כונסין ואין עושין סעודת אירוסין ולא מיבמין מפני ששמחה היא לו ש"מ ומי אמר שמואל שמא יקדמנו אחר והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני אלא שמא יקדמנו אחר ברחמים כי הא דרבא שמעיה לההוא גברא דבעי רחמי ואמר תזדמן לי פלניתא א"ל לא תיבעי רחמי הכי אי חזיא לך לא אזלא מינך ואי לא כפרת בה' בתר הכי שמעיה דקאמר או איהו לימות מקמה או איהי תמות מקמיה א"ל לאו אמינא לך לא תיבעי עלה דמילתא הכי אמר רב משום רבי ראובן בן אצטרובילי מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים מה' אשה לאיש מן התורה דכתיב (בראשית כד, נ) ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה' יצא הדבר מן הנביאים דכתיב (שופטים יד, ד) ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' היא מן הכתובים דכתיב (משלי יט, יד) בית והון נחלת אבות ומה' אשה משכלת ואמר רב משום רבי ראובן בן אצטרובילי ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא א"ר ראובן בן אצטרובילי אין אדם נחשד בדבר אלא א"כ עשאו ואם לא עשה כולו עשה מקצתו ואם לא עשה מקצתו הרהר בלבו לעשותו ואם לא הרהר בלבו לעשותו ראה אחרים שעשו ושמח מתיב רבי יעקב (מלכים ב יז, ט) ויחפאו בני ישראל דברים אשר לא כן על ה' אלהיהם התם להכעיס הוא דעבוד תא שמע (תהלים קו, טז) ויקנאו למשה במחנה לאהרן קדוש ה' רב שמואל בר יצחק אמר מלמד שכל אחד קינא לאשתו ממשה התם משום שנאה הוא דעבוד ת"ש אמר רבי יוסי יהא חלקי עם מי שחושדין אותו בדבר ואין בו ואמר רב פפא לדידי חשדון ולא הוה בי לא קשיא הא בקלא דפסיק הא בקלא דלא פסיק וקלא דלא פסיק עד כמה אמר אביי אמרה לי אם דומי דמתא יומא ופלגא והני מילי דלא פסק ביני ביני אבל פסק ביני ביני לית לן בה וכי פסק ביני ביני לא אמרן אלא דלא פסק מחמת יראה אבל פסק מחמת יראה לא ולא אמרן אלא דלא הדר נבט אבל הדר נבט לא ולא אמרן אלא דלית ליה אויבים אבל אית ליה אויבים אויבים הוא דאפקוה לקלא: מתני׳ אין כותבין שטרי חוב במועד ואם אינו מאמינו או שאין לו מה יאכל הרי זה יכתוב אין כותבין ספרים תפילין ומזוזות במועד ואין מגיהין אות אחת אפילו בספר עזרא רבי יהודה אומר כותב אדם תפילין ומזוזות לעצמו
of barbers that are used to cover a person having a haircut, and body-drying towels may all be laundered on the intermediate days of a Festival. This statement implies that these garments, yes, they may be laundered, but other types of linen garments, no, they may not be laundered. Abaye said to him: This is not a contradiction: The mishna is referring to garments made even of other types of materials; linen garments, however, may be laundered even when they serve other purposes. Bar Hedya said: I myself saw the Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee, to which basins full of linen garments were brought out to be laundered during the intermediate days of a Festival. Abaye strongly objects to this: This report cannot be adduced as proof for the halakha, for who says to us that they did this in accordance with the will of the Sages? Perhaps they did it without the will of the Sages. MISHNA: And these are the documents that may be written on the intermediate days of a Festival: Documents of betrothal of wives, through which bridegrooms betroth their brides; bills of divorce; receipts for the repayment of debts; wills [deyateiki]; deeds of gift; perozbolin, documents through which lenders authorize the courts to collect their loans on their behalf, thereby preventing the Sabbatical year from canceling their debts; letters of valuation, which were drawn up by the court when they valuated property and transferred it to the lender; and letters of sustenance, which were drawn up when one accepted upon himself to maintain another, e.g., his step-daughter. The list continues: Documents of the ritual through which the brother-in-law frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], thereby freeing her from the obligation to marry one of her deceased husband’s brothers; documents in which the court records the refusal of a girl upon reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father; documents of arbitration, in which the court summarizes a conflict that had been resolved through arbitration; court rulings; and the official correspondence of the ruling authorities. GEMARA: Shmuel said: It is permitted to betroth a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival, lest another come and betroth her first. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the mishna supports Shmuel, who said: And these are the documents that may be drawn up on the intermediate days of a Festival: Documents of betrothal. What, is the mishna not referring to actual documents of betrothal, through which one would actually betroth a woman? The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to documents of stipulation recording the amounts that the parents agree to pay as the dowry of their respective son or daughter, in accordance with what Rav Giddel said that Rav said. For Rav Giddel said that Rav said: When two families negotiate the terms of marriage for their respective children, and one side says to the other: How much do you give to your son as a dowry? And the second side says: I give such and such amount; how much do you give to your daughter? And the first side responds: Such and such amount, then, once the bride and groom arose and pronounced the betrothal formula, then all of these obligations are acquired and therefore binding. These are among the things that are acquired through words alone. In other words, there is no need to perform an additional act of acquisition in order to confirm the agreement, and the mishna is referring to a document recording such an agreement. Although such a document may be drawn up even on the intermediate days of a Festival, this does not mean that one may actually betroth a woman during this period. The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following mishna supports Shmuel: One may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival, neither a virgin nor a widow; nor may one then perform levirate marriage with his sister-in-law, if his brother died childless, because that would be a joyous occasion for him. This statement implies that it is only marrying that is prohibited, but betrothing is permitted. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is not the correct way to understand the mishna, as it is speaking in the style of: Needless to say. It is needless to say that betrothal is not permitted, because the groom does not perform a mitzva through betrothal. Rather, the same is true even of marriage, through which one performs a mitzva, as marriage is preparation for fulfilling the mitzva of procreation. It is still not permitted. The Gemara offers another support for Shmuel: Come and hear that which a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught in the following baraita: One may betroth a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival, but he may not marry her, nor may he make a betrothal feast, nor may he perform levirate marriage, because that would be a joyous occasion for him, and one may not mix the joy of a wedding with the joy of the Festival. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this a support for Shmuel’s opinion. The Gemara raises a question about the ruling itself: And did Shmuel actually say that we are concerned that perhaps another man will come and betroth the woman first? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Every day a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to be the wife of so-and-so; the field of so-and-so will belong to so-and-so? If this is the case, why should one be concerned lest another betroth her first? It is predestined that he will marry his designated mate. Rather, Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: Perhaps another man will come and betroth her first by means of praying for divine mercy. In other words, Shmuel is concerned that the rival may beseech God to cancel the decree of the Divine Voice, and therefore the first man needs to hurry and betroth the woman before the other one has a chance to pray that he should take her from him. This is like this incident, in which Rava heard a certain man asking for mercy, i.e., praying, who said: Grant me so-and-so as a wife. Rava said to him: Do not pray and ask for mercy in this way. If she is fit for you, and it has been decreed that she will be your wife, she will not go away from you. And if she is not destined to be your wife, you will come to deny the Lord when you see that your prayer is not answered. After the man married this woman, Rava heard him say in prayer: Please either let him die before her or let her die before him. He was speaking about himself and his wife because he had grown to hate her so much. Rava said to him: Did I not say to you not to pray for this matter? Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili as follows: From the Torah, and from the Prophets, and from the Writings; it implies that the decree that a specific woman is destined to be married to a specific man is from God. From where is this derived? It is from the Torah, as it is written: “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said: The thing comes from the Lord, we cannot speak to you either bad or good” (Genesis 24:50). From the Prophets, as it is written: “But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord” (Judges 14:4). From the Writings, as it is written: “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers; but a prudent woman is from the Lord” (Proverbs 19:14). § Apropos a teaching of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili, the Gemara states that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili, and some say that it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Reuven ben Itzterobili said: A man is suspected of having done something wrong only if he has indeed done so. And if he did not do it wholly, then probably he did it partly. And if he did not do it even partly, then probably he thought in his heart to do it. And if he did not even think to himself to do it, then certainly he saw others doing it and was happy. Suspicions do not arbitrarily arise about a person; therefore is certainly some basis for them. Rabbi Ya’akov raised an objection: Does the verse not say: “And the children of Israel fabricated matters that were not right against the Lord their God” (II Kings 17:9), which indicates that it is possible to make up stories about someone else even though they are entirely baseless. The Gemara answers: There they did it in order to anger God, but they did not actually think that what they were saying was true. Come and hear a challenge from a different source: The verse states: “And they were jealous of Moses in the camp, of Aaron the Lord’s holy one” (Psalms 106:16). Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: This verse teaches that every man warned his wife against seclusion with Moses because he was jealous. This implies that every man thought that his wife had secluded herself with Moses and sinned, although this was certainly not the case. This demonstrates that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. The Gemara answers: There they did it out of hatred for Moses. They did not actually suspect him of wrongdoing. Instead, their goal was to degrade him by leveling these false accusations against him. The Gemara raises another challenge, based on yet another source: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yosei said: May my portion in the future world be with one who is suspected of a certain wrongdoing but is innocent, as the pain that such a person experiences atones for his sins. This statement also appears to imply that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. And Rav Pappa said: They suspected me of a certain wrongdoing but I was not guilty. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This is referring to a rumor that stops, and therefore it is possible that it is groundless, whereas that is referring to a rumor that does not stop, and in that case there must be a factual basis for the suspicion. The Gemara asks: To be considered a rumor that does not stop, for how long must it persist? Abaye said: My nurse told me: Local gossip lasts for a day and a half, and then it is deemed to be a rumor that does not stop. The Gemara comments: This applies only if the rumor did not stop in between, during the day and a half, but if it stopped in between then we have no problem with it, and it is not a persistent rumor. And if the rumor stopped in between, we said that it is considered baseless only if it stopped of its own accord and not out of fear, i.e., because the suspect is violent and therefore people are afraid to speak badly about him. But if the rumor stopped out of fear, then this dispensation does not apply, and it is still assumed that there must be some basis to the rumor. And we said that a rumor that stopped is assumed to be baseless only if it did not arise again. But if it arose again, then this does not apply. And we said that a rumor that does not stop must be taken seriously only if the slandered person has no enemies. But if he has known enemies, then it can be assumed that it was the enemies who disseminated the rumor. 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. One may not write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, or mezuzot on the intermediate days of a Festival, nor may one correct a single letter, even in the Torah scroll of Ezra, which was kept in the Temple and upon which all the Jewish communities relied. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may write phylacteries and mezuzot for himself on the intermediate days of a Festival if he needs them.
(ד) [ד] ר' יונה בוצרייה פתח כי אלהים שופט זה ישפיל וזה ירים (תהלים עה:ח). מטרונא שאלה את ר' יוסי בר' חלפתא אמרה לו, לכמה ימים ברא הקב"ה את עולמו, א' לה לששה ימים דכת' כי ששת ימים עשה י"י וג' (שמות לא:יז). אמרה לו ומה הוא יושב ועושה מאותה השעה, אמ' לה מזוויג זיווגים, בתו של פלוני לפלני, אשתו של פלו' לפלוני, ממונו של פלו' לפל'. אמרה והדה היא, אף אני יכולה לעשות כן, כמה עבדים וכמה שפחות יש לי ובשעה קלה אני יכולה לזווגן. א' לה אם קלה היא בעיניך קשה היא לפני הקב"ה כקריעת ים סוף. היניחה ר' יוסי בר' חלפתה והלך לו. מה עשתה, נטלה אלף עבדים ואלף שפחות והעמידה אותן שורות שורות ואמרה, פלן ישא לפלנית פלנית תשא לפלן, וזיווגה אותן בלילה אחד. ובצפרא אתון לגבה, דין רישיה פציע דין עייניה שמיטה דין רגליה תבירא, דין או' לית אנא בעי לדא ודא אמרה לית אני בעי לדין. שלחה והביאה את ר' יוסי בר' חלפתא, אמרה לו אמת היא תורתכם נאה ומשובחת היא על כל מה שאמרת יפה אמרת. אמר לה ולא כך אמרתי לך אם קלה היא בעיניך קשה היא לפני הקב"ה כקריעת ים סוף. מה הק' עושה מזווגן על כורחן שלא בטובתן, הדה היא דכת' אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות (תהלים סח:ז). מה הוא בכושרות, בבכי ושירות, דבעי א' שירה ודלא בעי בכי. א' ר' ברכיה בלשון הזה השיבה ר' יוסי בר' חלפתא, הקב"ה יושב ועושה סולמות מעלה לזה ומוריד לזה משפיל לזה ומרים לזה, כי אלהים שופט זה ישפיל וזה ירים (שם עה:ח). ר' יונה בוצרייא ורבנין. רבנין פתרין קריא באהרן, בלשון זה הושפל ובלשון זה הוגבה. בלשון הזה הושפל, ואשליכהו באש ויצא העגל הזה (שמות לב:כד). ובלשון זה גובהה, זה קרבן אהרן ובניו (ויקרא ו:יג). ר' יונה בוצרייה פתר קרייא בישר', בלשון זה הושפלו ובלשון זה הוגבהו. בלשון זה הושפלו, כי זה משה האיש (שמות לב:א). ובלשון זה הוגבהו, זה יתנו כל העובר על הפקדים (שם ל:יג).
(ז) אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ מ֘וֹשִׁ֤יב יְחִידִ֨ים ׀ בַּ֗יְתָה מוֹצִ֣יא אֲ֭סִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁר֑וֹת אַ֥ךְ ס֝וֹרֲרִ֗ים שָׁכְנ֥וּ צְחִיחָֽה׃
(7) God restores the lonely to their homes, sets free the imprisoned, safe and sound, while the rebellious must live in a parched land.
(ו) בְּיָדְךָ֮ אַפְקִ֪יד ר֫וּחִ֥י פָּדִ֖יתָה אוֹתִ֥י יְהוָ֗ה אֵ֣ל אֱמֶֽת׃
(6) Into Your hand I entrust my spirit; You redeem me, O LORD, faithful God.
בְּפָמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה. וּבְפָמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַטָּה, וּבֵין הַתַּלְמִידִים הָעוֹסְקִים בְּתוֹרָתֶךָ בֵּין עוֹסְקִין לִשְׁמָהּ בֵּין עוֹסְקִין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. וְכָל הָעוֹסְקִין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְּהוּ עוֹסְקִין לִשְׁמָהּ״. רַבִּי אָלֶכְּסַנְדְרִי בָּתַר צְלוֹתֵיהּ אָמַר הָכִי: ״יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ, שֶׁתַּעֲמִידֵנוּ בְּקֶרֶן אוֹרָה, וְאַל תַּעֲמִידֵנוּ בְּקֶרֶן חֲשֵׁכָה, וְאַל יִדְוֶה לִבֵּנוּ, וְאַל יֶחְשְׁכוּ עֵינֵינוּ״. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, הָא רַב הַמְנוּנָא מְצַלֵּי לַהּ. וְרַבִּי אָלֶכְּסַנְדְרִי בָּתַר דִּמְצַלֵּי אָמַר הָכִי: ״רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁרְצוֹנֵנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹנֶךָ, וּמִי מְעַכֵּב? — שְׂאוֹר שֶׁבָּעִיסָּה וְשִׁעְבּוּד מַלְכֻיוֹת. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ שֶׁתַּצִּילֵנוּ מִיָּדָם, וְנָשׁוּב לַעֲשׂוֹת חוּקֵּי רְצוֹנְךָ בְּלֵבָב שָׁלֵם״. רָבָא בָּתַר צְלוֹתֵיהּ אָמַר הָכִי: ״אֱלֹהַי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נוֹצַרְתִּי אֵינִי כְּדַאי, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנּוֹצַרְתִּי כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נוֹצַרְתִּי. עָפָר אֲנִי בְּחַיַּי, קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּמִיתָתִי, הֲרֵי אֲנִי לְפָנֶיךָ כִּכְלִי מָלֵא בּוּשָׁה וּכְלִימָּה. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהַי, שֶׁלֹּא אֶחֱטָא עוֹד, וּמַה שֶּׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ מָרֵק בְּרַחֲמֶיךָ הָרַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא עַל יְדֵי יִסּוּרִין וָחֳלָאִים רָעִים״. וְהַיְינוּ וִידּוּי דְרַב הַמְנוּנָא זוּטֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי. מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא כִּי הֲוָה מְסַיֵּים צְלוֹתֵיהּ אָמַר הָכִי: ״אֱלֹהַי, נְצוֹר לְשׁוֹנִי מֵרָע וְשִׂפְתוֹתַי מִדַּבֵּר מִרְמָה, וְלִמְקַלְּלַי נַפְשִׁי תִדּוֹם, וְנַפְשִׁי כֶּעָפָר לַכֹּל תִּהְיֶה. פְּתַח לִבִּי בְּתוֹרָתֶךָ, וּבְמִצְוֹתֶיךָ תִּרְדּוֹף נַפְשִׁי. וְתַצִּילֵנִי מִפֶּגַע רָע, מִיֵּצֶר הָרָע, וּמֵאִשָּׁה רָעָה, וּמִכָּל רָעוֹת הַמִּתְרַגְּשׁוֹת לָבֹא בָּעוֹלָם. וְכָל הַחוֹשְׁבִים עָלַי רָעָה מְהֵרָה הָפֵר עֲצָתָם וְקַלְקֵל מַחְשְׁבוֹתָם. יִהְיוּ לְרָצוֹן אִמְרֵי פִי וְהֶגְיוֹן לִבִּי לְפָנֶיךָ ה׳ צוּרִי וְגוֹאֲלִי״. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת כִּי הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּתַעֲנִיתָא, בָּתַר דִּמְצַלֵּי אָמַר הָכִי: ״רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, גָּלוּי לְפָנֶיךָ בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, אָדָם חוֹטֵא — וּמַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן. וְאֵין מַקְרִיבִין מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶלָּא חֶלְבּוֹ וְדָמוֹ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. וְעַכְשָׁיו יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּתַעֲנִית וְנִתְמַעֵט חֶלְבִּי וְדָמִי, יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ שֶׁיְּהֵא חֶלְבִּי וְדָמִי שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵט כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרַבְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְתִרְצֵנִי״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי הֲוָה מְסַיֵּים סִפְרָא דְאִיּוֹב, אָמַר הָכִי: ״סוֹף אָדָם לָמוּת וְסוֹף בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁחִיטָה, וְהַכֹּל לְמִיתָה הֵם עוֹמְדִים. אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדֵל בַּתּוֹרָה וַעֲמָלוֹ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְעוֹשֶׂה נַחַת רוּחַ לְיוֹצְרוֹ, וְגָדֵל בְּשֵׁם טוֹב וְנִפְטָר בְּשֵׁם טוֹב מִן הָעוֹלָם, וְעָלָיו אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: 'טוֹב שֵׁם מִשֶּׁמֶן טוֹב וְיוֹם הַמָּוֶת מִיּוֹם הִוָּלְדוֹ'״. מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: ״גְּמוֹר בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ לָדַעַת אֶת דְּרָכַי, וְלִשְׁקוֹד עַל דַּלְתֵי תוֹרָתִי. נְצוֹר תּוֹרָתִי בְּלִבְּךָ, וְנֶגֶד עֵינֶיךָ תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתִי. שְׁמוֹר פִּיךְ מִכָּל חֵטְא, וְטַהֵר וְקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמְךָ מִכָּל אַשְׁמָה וְעָוֹן. וַאֲנִי אֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ בְּכָל מָקוֹם״. מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמַּיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּיַבְנֶה: ״אֲנִי בְּרִיָּה, וַחֲבֵרִי בְּרִיָּה. אֲנִי מְלַאכְתִּי בָּעִיר וְהוּא מְלַאכְתּוֹ בַּשָּׂדֶה. אֲנִי מַשְׁכִּים לִמְלַאכְתִּי, וְהוּא מַשְׁכִּים לִמְלַאכְתּוֹ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ מִתְגַּדֵּר בִּמְלַאכְתִּי, כָּךְ אֲנִי אֵינִי מִתְגַּדֵּר בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר: אֲנִי מַרְבֶּה, וְהוּא מַמְעִיט — שָׁנִינוּ: אֶחָד הַמַּרְבֶּה וְאֶחָד הַמַּמְעִיט וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּכַוֵּין לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם״. מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵּי: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם עָרוּם בְּיִרְאָה. ״מַעֲנֶה רַךְ מֵשִׁיב חֵמָה״. וּמַרְבֶּה שָׁלוֹם עִם אֶחָיו וְעִם קְרוֹבָיו וְעִם כָּל אָדָם וַאֲפִילּוּ עִם גּוֹי בַּשּׁוּק, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָהוּב לְמַעְלָה וְנֶחְמָד לְמַטָּה, וִיהֵא מְקוּבָּל עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּימוֹ אָדָם שָׁלוֹם מֵעוֹלָם, וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי בַּשּׁוּק. מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: תַּכְלִית חָכְמָה — תְּשׁוּבָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם קוֹרֵא וְשׁוֹנֶה וּבוֹעֵט בְּאָבִיו וּבְאִמּוֹ וּבְרַבּוֹ וּבְמִי שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רֵאשִׁית חָכְמָה יִרְאַת ה׳ שֵׂכֶל טוֹב לְכָל עוֹשֵׂיהֶם״. ״לָעוֹשִׂים״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לְעוֹשֵׂיהֶם״ — לָעוֹשִׂים לִשְׁמָהּ וְלֹא לָעוֹשִׂים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, נוֹחַ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא. מַרְגְּלָא בְּפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: לֹא כָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֵין בּוֹ לֹא אֲכִילָה וְלֹא שְׁתִיָּהּ וְלֹא פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וְלֹא מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן וְלֹא קִנְאָה וְלֹא שִׂנְאָה וְלֹא תַּחֲרוּת, אֶלָּא צַדִּיקִים יוֹשְׁבִין וְעַטְרוֹתֵיהֶם בְּרָאשֵׁיהֶם וְנֶהֱנִים מִזִּיו הַשְּׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ״. גְּדוֹלָה הַבְטָחָה שֶׁהִבְטִיחָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְנָשִׁים יוֹתֵר מִן הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נָשִׁים שַׁאֲנַנּוֹת קֹמְנָה שְׁמַעְנָה קוֹלִי בָּנוֹת בֹּטְחוֹת הַאְזֵנָּה אִמְרָתִי״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: נָשִׁים בְּמַאי זָכְיָין? בְּאַקְרוֹיֵי בְּנַיְיהוּ לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא, וּבְאַתְנוֹיֵי גַּבְרַיְיהוּ בֵּי רַבָּנַן, וְנָטְרִין לְגַבְרַיְיהוּ עַד דְּאָתוּ מִבֵּי רַבָּנַן. כִּי הֲווֹ מִפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מִבֵּי רַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִבֵּי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ הָכִי: ״עוֹלָמְךָ תִּרְאֶה בְּחַיֶּיךָ, וְאַחֲרִיתְךָ לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, וְתִקְוָתְךָ לְדוֹר דּוֹרִים. לִבְּךָ יֶהְגֶּה תְּבוּנָה, פִּיךָ יְדַבֵּר חָכְמוֹת וּלְשׁוֹנְךָ יַרְחִישׁ רְנָנוֹת, עַפְעַפֶּיךָ יַיְשִׁירוּ נֶגְדְּךָ, עֵינֶיךָ יָאִירוּ בִּמְאוֹר תּוֹרָה, וּפָנֶיךָ יַזְהִירוּ כְּזוֹהַר הָרָקִיעַ, שִׂפְתוֹתֶיךָ יַבִּיעוּ דַּעַת, וְכִלְיוֹתֶיךָ תַּעֲלוֹזְנָה מֵישָׁרִים, וּפְעָמֶיךָ יָרוּצוּ לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי עַתִּיק יוֹמִין״. כִּי הֲווֹ מִפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מִבֵּי רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִבֵּי רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ הָכִי: ״אַלּוּפֵינוּ מְסֻבָּלִים וְגוֹ׳״. ״אַלּוּפֵינוּ מְסֻבָּלִים״ — רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: ״אַלּוּפֵינוּ״ — בַּתּוֹרָה, וּ״מְסֻבָּלִים״ — בְּמִצְוֹת. וְחַד אָמַר: ״אַלּוּפֵינוּ״ — בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת, וּ״מְסֻבָּלִים״ — בְּיִסּוּרִים.
in the heavenly entourage [pamalia] of angels each of whom ministers to a specific nation (see Daniel 10), and whose infighting causes war on earth;
and in the earthly entourage, the Sages,
and among the disciples engaged in the study of Your Torah,
whether they engage in its study for its own sake or not for its own sake.
And all those engaged in Torah study not for its own sake,
may it be Your will that they will come to engage in its study for its own sake. After his prayer, Rabbi Alexandri said the following:
May it be Your will, Lord our God,
that You station us in a lighted corner and not in a darkened corner,
and do not let our hearts become faint nor our eyes dim.
Some say that this was the prayer that Rav Hamnuna would recite, and that after Rabbi Alexandri prayed, he would say the following:
Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You
that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us?
On the one hand, the yeast in the dough, the evil inclination that is within every person;
and the subjugation to the kingdoms on the other.
May it be Your will
that You will deliver us from their hands, of both the evil inclination and the foreign kingdoms,
so that we may return to perform the edicts of Your will with a perfect heart. After his prayer, Rava said the following:
My God, before I was created I was worthless,
and now that I have been created it is as if I had not been created, I am no more significant.
I am dust in life, all the more so in my death.
I am before You as a vessel filled with shame and humiliation.
Therefore, may it be Your will, Lord my God, that I will sin no more,
and that those transgressions that I have committed,
cleanse in Your abundant mercy;
but may this cleansing not be by means of suffering and serious illness, but rather in a manner I will be able to easily endure.
And this is the confession of Rav Hamnuna Zuti on Yom Kippur. When Mar, son of Ravina, would conclude his prayer, he said the following:
My God, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceit.
To those who curse me let my soul be silent
and may my soul be like dust to all.
Open my heart to Your Torah,
and may my soul pursue your mitzvot.
And save me from a bad mishap, from the evil inclination,
from a bad woman, and from all evils that suddenly come upon the world.
And all who plan evil against me,
swiftly thwart their counsel, and frustrate their plans.
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart find favor before You,
Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer. The Gemara recounts that when Rav Sheshet would sit in observance of a fast, after he prayed he said as follows:
Master of the Universe, it is revealed before You
that when the Temple is standing, one sins and offers a sacrifice.
And although only its fat and blood were offered from that sacrifice on the altar, his transgression is atoned for him.
And now, I sat in observance of a fast and my fat and blood diminished.
May it be Your will that my fat and blood that diminished be considered as if I offered a sacrifice before You on the altar,
and may I find favor in Your eyes.
Having cited statements that various Sages would recite after their prayers, the Gemara cites additional passages recited by the Sages on different occasions. When Rabbi Yoḥanan would conclude study of the book of Job, he said the following:
A person will ultimately die and an animal will ultimately be slaughtered, and all are destined for death. Therefore, death itself is not a cause for great anguish.
Rather, happy is he who grew up in Torah, whose labor is in Torah,
who gives pleasure to his Creator,
who grew up with a good name and who took leave of the world with a good name.
Such a person lived his life fully, and about him, Solomon said:
“A good name is better than fine oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s birth” (Ecclesiastes 7:1); one who was faultless in life reaches the day of his death on a higher level than he was at the outset. Rabbi Meir was wont to say the following idiom:
Study with all your heart and with all your soul to know My ways
and to be diligent at the doors of My Torah.
Keep My Torah in your heart,
and fear of Me should be before your eyes.
Guard your mouth from all transgression,
and purify and sanctify yourself from all fault and iniquity.
And if you do so, I, God, will be with you everywhere. The Sages in Yavne were wont to say:
I who learn Torah am God’s creature and my counterpart who engages in other labor is God’s creature.
My work is in the city and his work is in the field.
I rise early for my work and he rises early for his work.
And just as he does not presume to perform my work, so I do not presume to perform his work.
Lest you say: I engage in Torah study a lot, while he only engages in Torah study a little, so I am better than he,
it has already been taught:
One who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a meager sacrifice have equal merit,
as long as he directs his heart towards Heaven (Rav Hai Gaon, Arukh). Abaye was wont to say:
One must always be shrewd and utilize every strategy in order to achieve fear of Heaven and performance of mitzvot.
One must fulfill the verse: “A soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1)
and take steps to increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives,
and with all people, even with a non-Jew in the marketplace, despite the fact that he is of no importance to him and does not know him at all (Me’iri),
so that he will be loved above in God’s eyes,
pleasant below in the eyes of the people,
and acceptable to all of God’s creatures. Tangentially, the Gemara mentions that they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-Jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first. Rava was wont to say:
The objective of Torah wisdom is to achieve repentance and good deeds;
that one should not read the Torah and study mishna and become arrogant
and spurn his father and his mother and his teacher
and one who is greater than he in wisdom or in the number of students who study before him,
as it is stated: “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, a good understanding have all who fulfill them” (Psalms 111:10).
It is not stated simply: All who fulfill, but rather: All who fulfill them, those who perform these actions as they ought to be performed, meaning those who do such deeds for their own sake, for the sake of the deeds themselves, not those who do them not for their own sake.
Rava continued: One who does them not for their own sake, it would have been preferable for him had he not been created. Rav was wont to say:
The World-to-Come is not like this world.
In the World-to-Come there is no eating, no drinking,
no procreation, no business negotiations,
no jealousy, no hatred, and no competition.
Rather, the righteous sit with their crowns upon their heads, enjoying the splendor of the Divine Presence, as it is stated:
“And they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exodus 24:11), meaning that beholding God’s countenance is tantamount to eating and drinking. The Gemara states: Greater is the promise for the future made by the Holy One, Blessed be He, to women than to men, as it is stated: “Rise up, women at ease; hear My voice, confident daughters, listen to what I say” (Isaiah 32:9). This promise of ease and confidence is not given to men. Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: By what virtue do women merit to receive this reward? Rabbi Ḥiyya answered: They merit this reward for bringing their children to read the Torah in the synagogue, and for sending their husbands to study mishna in the study hall, and for waiting for their husbands until they return from the study hall. When the Sages who had been studying there took leave of the study hall of Rabbi Ami, and some say it was the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina, they would say to him the following blessing:
May you see your world, may you benefit from all of the good in the world, in your lifetime,
and may your end be to life in the World-to-Come,
and may your hope be sustained for many generations.
May your heart meditate understanding,
your mouth speak wisdom, and your tongue whisper with praise.
May your eyelids look directly before you,
your eyes shine in the light of Torah,
and your face radiate like the brightness of the firmament.
May your lips express knowledge,
your kidneys rejoice in the upright,
and your feet run to hear the words of the Ancient of Days, God (see Daniel 7). When the Sages took leave of the study hall of Rav Ḥisda, and some say it was the study hall of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, they would say to him the following, in accordance with the verse: “Our leaders are laden, there is no breach and no going forth and no outcry in our open places” (Psalms 144:14). Our leaders are laden. Rav and Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar, disputed the proper understanding of this verse. One said: Our leaders in Torah are laden with mitzvot. And one said: Our leaders in Torah and mitzvot are laden with suffering.
and in the earthly entourage, the Sages,
and among the disciples engaged in the study of Your Torah,
whether they engage in its study for its own sake or not for its own sake.
And all those engaged in Torah study not for its own sake,
may it be Your will that they will come to engage in its study for its own sake. After his prayer, Rabbi Alexandri said the following:
May it be Your will, Lord our God,
that You station us in a lighted corner and not in a darkened corner,
and do not let our hearts become faint nor our eyes dim.
Some say that this was the prayer that Rav Hamnuna would recite, and that after Rabbi Alexandri prayed, he would say the following:
Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You
that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us?
On the one hand, the yeast in the dough, the evil inclination that is within every person;
and the subjugation to the kingdoms on the other.
May it be Your will
that You will deliver us from their hands, of both the evil inclination and the foreign kingdoms,
so that we may return to perform the edicts of Your will with a perfect heart. After his prayer, Rava said the following:
My God, before I was created I was worthless,
and now that I have been created it is as if I had not been created, I am no more significant.
I am dust in life, all the more so in my death.
I am before You as a vessel filled with shame and humiliation.
Therefore, may it be Your will, Lord my God, that I will sin no more,
and that those transgressions that I have committed,
cleanse in Your abundant mercy;
but may this cleansing not be by means of suffering and serious illness, but rather in a manner I will be able to easily endure.
And this is the confession of Rav Hamnuna Zuti on Yom Kippur. When Mar, son of Ravina, would conclude his prayer, he said the following:
My God, guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceit.
To those who curse me let my soul be silent
and may my soul be like dust to all.
Open my heart to Your Torah,
and may my soul pursue your mitzvot.
And save me from a bad mishap, from the evil inclination,
from a bad woman, and from all evils that suddenly come upon the world.
And all who plan evil against me,
swiftly thwart their counsel, and frustrate their plans.
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart find favor before You,
Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer. The Gemara recounts that when Rav Sheshet would sit in observance of a fast, after he prayed he said as follows:
Master of the Universe, it is revealed before You
that when the Temple is standing, one sins and offers a sacrifice.
And although only its fat and blood were offered from that sacrifice on the altar, his transgression is atoned for him.
And now, I sat in observance of a fast and my fat and blood diminished.
May it be Your will that my fat and blood that diminished be considered as if I offered a sacrifice before You on the altar,
and may I find favor in Your eyes.
Having cited statements that various Sages would recite after their prayers, the Gemara cites additional passages recited by the Sages on different occasions. When Rabbi Yoḥanan would conclude study of the book of Job, he said the following:
A person will ultimately die and an animal will ultimately be slaughtered, and all are destined for death. Therefore, death itself is not a cause for great anguish.
Rather, happy is he who grew up in Torah, whose labor is in Torah,
who gives pleasure to his Creator,
who grew up with a good name and who took leave of the world with a good name.
Such a person lived his life fully, and about him, Solomon said:
“A good name is better than fine oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s birth” (Ecclesiastes 7:1); one who was faultless in life reaches the day of his death on a higher level than he was at the outset. Rabbi Meir was wont to say the following idiom:
Study with all your heart and with all your soul to know My ways
and to be diligent at the doors of My Torah.
Keep My Torah in your heart,
and fear of Me should be before your eyes.
Guard your mouth from all transgression,
and purify and sanctify yourself from all fault and iniquity.
And if you do so, I, God, will be with you everywhere. The Sages in Yavne were wont to say:
I who learn Torah am God’s creature and my counterpart who engages in other labor is God’s creature.
My work is in the city and his work is in the field.
I rise early for my work and he rises early for his work.
And just as he does not presume to perform my work, so I do not presume to perform his work.
Lest you say: I engage in Torah study a lot, while he only engages in Torah study a little, so I am better than he,
it has already been taught:
One who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a meager sacrifice have equal merit,
as long as he directs his heart towards Heaven (Rav Hai Gaon, Arukh). Abaye was wont to say:
One must always be shrewd and utilize every strategy in order to achieve fear of Heaven and performance of mitzvot.
One must fulfill the verse: “A soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1)
and take steps to increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives,
and with all people, even with a non-Jew in the marketplace, despite the fact that he is of no importance to him and does not know him at all (Me’iri),
so that he will be loved above in God’s eyes,
pleasant below in the eyes of the people,
and acceptable to all of God’s creatures. Tangentially, the Gemara mentions that they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-Jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first. Rava was wont to say:
The objective of Torah wisdom is to achieve repentance and good deeds;
that one should not read the Torah and study mishna and become arrogant
and spurn his father and his mother and his teacher
and one who is greater than he in wisdom or in the number of students who study before him,
as it is stated: “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, a good understanding have all who fulfill them” (Psalms 111:10).
It is not stated simply: All who fulfill, but rather: All who fulfill them, those who perform these actions as they ought to be performed, meaning those who do such deeds for their own sake, for the sake of the deeds themselves, not those who do them not for their own sake.
Rava continued: One who does them not for their own sake, it would have been preferable for him had he not been created. Rav was wont to say:
The World-to-Come is not like this world.
In the World-to-Come there is no eating, no drinking,
no procreation, no business negotiations,
no jealousy, no hatred, and no competition.
Rather, the righteous sit with their crowns upon their heads, enjoying the splendor of the Divine Presence, as it is stated:
“And they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exodus 24:11), meaning that beholding God’s countenance is tantamount to eating and drinking. The Gemara states: Greater is the promise for the future made by the Holy One, Blessed be He, to women than to men, as it is stated: “Rise up, women at ease; hear My voice, confident daughters, listen to what I say” (Isaiah 32:9). This promise of ease and confidence is not given to men. Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: By what virtue do women merit to receive this reward? Rabbi Ḥiyya answered: They merit this reward for bringing their children to read the Torah in the synagogue, and for sending their husbands to study mishna in the study hall, and for waiting for their husbands until they return from the study hall. When the Sages who had been studying there took leave of the study hall of Rabbi Ami, and some say it was the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina, they would say to him the following blessing:
May you see your world, may you benefit from all of the good in the world, in your lifetime,
and may your end be to life in the World-to-Come,
and may your hope be sustained for many generations.
May your heart meditate understanding,
your mouth speak wisdom, and your tongue whisper with praise.
May your eyelids look directly before you,
your eyes shine in the light of Torah,
and your face radiate like the brightness of the firmament.
May your lips express knowledge,
your kidneys rejoice in the upright,
and your feet run to hear the words of the Ancient of Days, God (see Daniel 7). When the Sages took leave of the study hall of Rav Ḥisda, and some say it was the study hall of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, they would say to him the following, in accordance with the verse: “Our leaders are laden, there is no breach and no going forth and no outcry in our open places” (Psalms 144:14). Our leaders are laden. Rav and Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar, disputed the proper understanding of this verse. One said: Our leaders in Torah are laden with mitzvot. And one said: Our leaders in Torah and mitzvot are laden with suffering.
(ח) שִׁוִּ֬יתִי יְהוָ֣ה לְנֶגְדִּ֣י תָמִ֑יד כִּ֥י מִֽ֝ימִינִ֗י בַּל־אֶמּֽוֹט׃
(8) I am ever mindful of the LORD’s presence; He is at my right hand; I shall never be shaken.
(ב) אִם־לֹ֤א שִׁוִּ֨יתִי ׀ וְדוֹמַ֗מְתִּי נַ֫פְשִׁ֥י כְּ֭גָמֻל עֲלֵ֣י אִמּ֑וֹ כַּגָּמֻ֖ל עָלַ֣י נַפְשִֽׁי׃
(2) -but I have taught myself to be contented like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child am I in my mind.
(ו) וּמָ֨ל יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־לְבָבְךָ֖ וְאֶת־לְבַ֣ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ לְאַהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ֥ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ לְמַ֥עַן חַיֶּֽיךָ׃
(6) Then the LORD your God will open up your heart and the hearts of your offspring to love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul, in order that you may live.
(ב) עבר השליח על דעת משלחו לא עשה כלום ודוקא שהודיע שהוא שליח של פלוני לפיכך אע"פ שמשך או המשיך אם נמצא שעבר על דעת משלחו בטל המקח ומחזיר אבל אם לא הודיעו שהוא שלוחו של פלוני נקנה המקח ויהיה הדין בינו ובין זה ששלחו:
(א) כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו:
(1) All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, and an epikoros, who treats Torah scholars and the Torah that they teach with contempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature, and one who whispers invocations over a wound and says as an invocation for healing: “Every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). By doing so, he shows contempt for the sanctity of the name of God and therefore has no share in the World-to-Come. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.
(ד) וְאַתֶּם֙ הַדְּבֵקִ֔ים בַּיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם חַיִּ֥ים כֻּלְּכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם׃
(4) while you, who held fast to the LORD your God, are all alive today.
(ב) אָ֤ז יִמָּלֵ֪א שְׂח֡וֹק פִּינוּ֮ וּלְשׁוֹנֵ֪נוּ רִ֫נָּ֥ה אָ֭ז יֹאמְר֣וּ בַגּוֹיִ֑ם הִגְדִּ֥יל יְ֝הוָ֗ה לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת עִם־אֵֽלֶּה׃
(2) our mouths shall be filled with laughter, our tongues, with songs of joy. Then shall they say among the nations, “The LORD has done great things for them!”
לומר שאף על פי שמקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהם שכר ולא והתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול אלא לומר לך שאין מקבלין עליהם שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דאמר ר' חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר משאינו מצווה ועושה אלא כך אומרים העובדי כוכבים לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע ישראל שקיבלוה היכן קיימוה אמר להם הקב"ה אני מעיד בהם שקיימו את התורה כולה אומרים לפניו רבש"ע כלום יש אב שמעיד על בנו דכתיב (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל אמר להם הקב"ה שמים וארץ יעידו בהם שקיימו את התורה כולה אומרים לפניו רבש"ע שמים וארץ נוגעין בעדותן שנאמ' (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (דאר"ש) [ואר"ש] בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (בראשית א, לא) ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום הששי מלמד שהתנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית ואמר אם ישראל מקבלין את תורתי מוטב ואם לאו אני אחזיר אתכם לתוהו ובוהו והיינו דאמר חזקיה מאי דכתיב (תהלים עו, ט) משמים השמעת דין ארץ יראה ושקטה אם יראה למה שקטה ואם שקטה למה יראה אלא בתחלה יראה ולבסוף שקטה אמר להם הקב"ה מכם יבאו ויעידו בהן בישראל שקיימו את התורה כולה יבא נמרוד ויעיד באברהם שלא עבד עבודת כוכבים יבא לבן ויעיד ביעקב שלא נחשד על הגזל תבא אשת פוטיפרע ותעיד ביוסף שלא נחשד על העבירה יבא נבוכד נצר ויעיד בחנניה מישאל ועזריה שלא השתחוו לצלם יבא דריוש ויעיד בדניאל שלא ביטל את התפלה יבא בלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ואליפז התימני ואליהו בן ברכאל הבוזי ויעידו בהם בישראל שקיימו את כל התורה כולה שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, ט) יתנו עידיהם ויצדקו אמרו לפניו רבש"ע תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה אמר להן הקב"ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת אלא אף על פי כן מצוה קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותה ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ז, יא) אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכר אלא שאין הקב"ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס מיד כל אחד [ואחד] נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא שנאמר (תהלים ב, ג) ננתקה את מוסרותימו ונשליכה ממנו עבותימו מקדיר והא אמרת אין הקדוש ברוך הוא בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו משום דישראל נמי זימני
This serves to say that even if they fulfill the seven Noahide mitzvot they do not receive a reward for their fulfilment. The Gemara asks: And are they not rewarded for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? The verse states: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a person do, and shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, but rather the general term “person.” From here you learn that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a High Priest. This demonstrates that gentiles are rewarded for fulfilling mitzvot, despite the fact that they are not commanded to do so. Rather, the verse serves to tell you that they do not receive as great a reward for their fulfillment as one who is commanded and performs a mitzva. Rather, they receive a lesser reward, like that of one who is not commanded and still performs a mitzva. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded and performs it. The Gemara returns to the discussion between God and the nations of the world, whose claims are rejected with the rebuttal that they did not receive the Torah because they did not fulfill the seven Noahide mitzvot that were incumbent upon them. Rather, this is what the gentiles say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, as for the Jewish people who accepted the Torah, where is the evidence that they fulfilled its mitzvot? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: I will testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, is there a father who can testify about his son? As it is written: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). Since God is considered the Father of the Jewish people, He is disqualified from testifying on their behalf. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Heaven and earth will testify about them that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, in this matter the testimony of heaven and earth is tainted by a conflict of interest, as it is stated: “If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). And concerning this verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, established a condition with the acts of Creation, and said: If the Jewish people accept My Torah at the revelation at Sinai, all is well, but if they do not accept it, I will return you to the primordial state of chaos and disorder. And this is similar to that which Ḥizkiyya says with regard to a different matter: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You caused sentence to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was silent” (Psalms 76:9)? If the earth feared, why was it silent, and if it was silent, why did it fear? One who is afraid does not stay silent, and one who remains silent thereby demonstrates that he is not afraid. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse: At first, when God came to give the Torah to the Jewish people, the earth feared that they might not accept it, and it would be destroyed. This is alluded to by the phrase “You caused sentence to be heard.” But ultimately, when the Jews accepted the Torah, the earth was silent. Consequently, heaven and earth are interested parties and cannot testify about the Jewish people’s commitment to the Torah. Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the nations: Let the witnesses come from among you and testify that the Jewish people fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. Let Nimrod come and testify about Abraham that he did not engage in idol worship. Let Laban come and testify about Jacob that he is not suspect with regard to robbery (see Genesis 31:36–42). Let the wife of Potiphar come and testify about Joseph that he is not suspect with regard to the sin of adultery (see Genesis 39:7–12). Let Nebuchadnezzar come and testify about Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah that they did not prostrate themselves before a graven image. Let Darius come and testify about Daniel that he did not neglect his prayer (see Daniel 6). Let Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Eliphaz the Temanite, and Elihu, son of Barachel, the Buzite, friends of Job (see Job 2:11 and 32:2) come and testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. As it is stated: “All the nations are gathered together…let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9), i.e., the gathered gentiles will submit testimony on behalf of the Jewish people and demonstrate the Jews’ righteousness. The gentiles say before Him: Master of the Universe, give us the Torah afresh and we will perform its mitzvot. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: Fools of the world! Do you think you can request this? One who takes pains on Shabbat eve will eat on Shabbat, but one who did not take pains on Shabbat eve, from where will he eat on Shabbat? The opportunity for performing mitzvot has already passed, and it is now too late to ask to perform them. But even so, I have an easy mitzva to fulfill, and its name is sukka; go and perform it. The Gemara asks: And how can you say so, that it is possible to perform a mitzva after the end of this world? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You shall therefore keep the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which I command you this day, to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? This verse teaches that today, in this world, is the time to do them, but tomorrow, in the World-to-Come, is not the time to do them. Furthermore, today is the time to do them, but today is not the time to receive one’s reward, which is granted in the World-to-Come. The Gemara explains: But even so, God gave the nations an opportunity to perform a mitzva, as The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically [beteruneya] with His creations, but wants them to feel that they have been judged fairly. The Gemara asks: And why does God call the mitzva of sukka an easy mitzva to fulfill? Because performing the mitzva involves no monetary loss. Immediately, each and every gentile will take materials and go and construct a sukka on top of his roof. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will set upon them the heat [makdir] of the sun in the season of Tammuz, i.e., the summer, and each and every one who is sitting in his sukka will be unable to stand the heat, and he will kick his sukka and leave, as it is stated: “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). The Gemara asks: Why does God heat the sun over them? But didn’t you say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically with His creations? The Gemara answers: This is not considered dealing tyrannically with the gentiles, because for the Jewish people as well, there are times
והלכתא מותרת לשניהם: מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה דבר ערוה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות דבר ובית הלל אומרים אפילו הקדיחה תבשילו שנאמר כי מצא בה ערות דבר ר' עקיבא אומר אפי' מצא אחרת נאה הימנה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו: גמ׳ תניא אמרו בית הלל לבית שמאי והלא כבר נאמר דבר אמרו להם ב"ש והלא כבר נאמר ערות אמרו להם ב"ה אם נאמר ערות ולא נאמר דבר הייתי אומר משום ערוה תצא משום דבר לא תצא לכך נאמר דבר ואילו נאמר דבר ולא נאמר ערות הייתי אומר משום דבר תנשא לאחר ומשום ערוה לא תנשא לאחר לכך נאמר ערות וב"ש האי דבר מאי עבדי ליה נאמר כאן דבר ונאמר להלן דבר (דברים יט, טו) על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה להלן בשני עדים אף כאן בשני עדים וב"ה מי כתיב ערוה בדבר וב"ש מי כתיב או ערוה או דבר וב"ה להכי כתיב ערות דבר דמשמע הכי ומשמע הכי: ר"ע אומר אפי' מצא אחרת: במאי קא מיפלגי בדר"ל דאמר ריש לקיש כי משמש בד' לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא ב"ש סברי [והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו] כי מצא בה ערות דבר דהא מצא בה ערות דבר ור"ע סבר כי מצא בה ערות דבר אי נמי מצא בה ערות דבר אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא לא מצא בה לא ערוה ולא דבר מהו א"ל מדגלי רחמנא גבי אונס (דברים כב, יט) לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר קאי התם הוא דגלי רחמנא אבל הכא מאי דעבד עבד א"ל רב משרשיא לרבא אם לבו לגרשה והיא יושבת תחתיו ומשמשתו מהו קרי עליה (משלי ג, כט) אל תחרש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כשם שהדעות במאכל כך דעות בנשים יש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ואינו שותהו וזו היא מדת פפוס בן יהודה שהיה נועל בפני אשתו ויוצא ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ושותהו וזו היא מדת כל אדם שמדברת עם אחיה וקרוביה ומניחה ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך תמחוי מוצצו ואוכלו זו היא מדת אדם רע שרואה את אשתו יוצאה וראשה פרוע וטווה בשוק
And the halakha is that she is permitted to both of them. MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1). GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t the word “matter” already stated in the verse, indicating that any disadvantageous matter is a legitimate reason for divorce? Beit Shammai said to them: But isn’t the word “unseemly [ervat]” already stated? Beit Hillel said to them: If the word “unseemly” had been stated and the word “matter” had not been stated, I would have said that a wife should leave her husband due to forbidden sexual intercourse, but she should not have to leave him due to any other matter. Therefore, the word “matter” is stated. And if the word “matter” had been stated and the word “unseemly” had not been stated, I would have said that if he divorced her merely due to a disadvantageous matter she may marry another man, as the Torah continues: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). But if she was divorced due to her engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, she may not marry another man, as she is prohibited from remarrying. Therefore, the word “unseemly” is stated, indicating that even a wife who is divorced due to adultery is permitted to remarry. The Gemara asks: And what do Beit Shammai do with this word “matter”? How do they interpret it? It seems superfluous, as in their opinion the verse refers specifically to a wife who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse. The Gemara answers: The word “matter” is stated here, with regard to divorce, and the word “matter” is stated there, with regard to testimony: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Just as there, it is stated that a matter is established only through two witnesses, so too here, a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse justifies divorce only if it is established through two witnesses. And Beit Hillel would respond to this analogy in the following manner: Is it written: Because he has found something unseemly in a matter [erva bedavar], indicating that it was established through the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adultery? And Beit Shammai would respond to Beit Hillel’s interpretation as follows: Is it written: Because he has found either something unseemly or another matter [o erva o davar], in accordance with Beit Hillel’s understanding? And Beit Hillel would respond that for this reason the expression “some unseemly matter [ervat davar]” is written, as it indicates that interpretation, i.e., that a husband is not obligated to divorce his wife unless there are two witnesses to her having engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, and it also indicates this interpretation, i.e., that he may divorce her due to any deficiency, be it adultery or any other shortcoming. § It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the application of Reish Lakish’s statement, as Reish Lakish said that the term ki actually has at least four distinct meanings: If, perhaps, rather, and because. Beit Shammai hold that the verse “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because [ki] he has found some unseemly matter in her” means that she did not find favor in his eyes due to the fact that he has found some unseemly matter in her. And Rabbi Akiva holds that the phrase “because [ki] he has found some unseemly matter in her” means: Or if he has found some unseemly matter in her. § Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to Beit Hillel, if the husband found about her neither forbidden sexual intercourse nor any other matter, but divorced her anyway, what is the halakha? Is the divorce valid? Rava said to him that the answer can be derived from what the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to a rapist: “He may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that even if he divorces the woman whom he raped and was subsequently commanded to marry, all his days he stands commanded to arise and remarry her as his wife. Evidently, specifically there the husband is obligated to remarry his divorcée, as the Merciful One reveals as much. But here, what he did, he did. Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: If he intends to divorce her and she is living with him and serving him, what is the halakha? Rava read the following verse about such a person: “Devise not evil against your neighbor, seeing he dwells securely by you” (Proverbs 3:29). § It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 5:9) that Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are different attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are different attitudes with regard to women. With regard to food, you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the wine with the fly and does not drink it. And this is comparable to the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda with regard to his wife, as he would lock the door before his wife and leave so that she would not see any other man. And you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the fly and drinks the wine. And this is comparable to the demeanor of any common man, whose wife speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her do so. And you have a man who, when a fly falls into his serving bowl, he sucks the fly and eats the food. This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out into the street with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace immodestly,
ופרומה משני צדדיה ורוחצת עם בני אדם עם בני אדם ס"ד אלא במקום שבני אדם רוחצין זו מצוה מן התורה לגרשה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות וגו' ושלחה מביתו והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר הכתוב קראו אחר לומר שאין זה בן זוגו לראשון זה הוציא רשעה מביתו וזה הכניס רשעה לתוך ביתו זכה שני שלחה שנאמר ושנאה האיש האחרון ואם לאו קוברתו שנאמר (דברים כד, ג) או כי ימות האיש האחרון כדאי הוא במיתה שזה הוציא רשעה מביתו וזה הכניס רשעה לתוך ביתו (מלאכי ב, טז) כי שנא שלח ר' יהודה אומר אם שנאתה שלח ר' יוחנן אומר שנאוי המשלח ולא פליגי הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני דאמר ר' אלעזר כל המגרש אשתו ראשונה אפילו מזבח מוריד עליו דמעות שנאמר (מלאכי ב, יג) וזאת שנית תעשו כסות דמעה את מזבח ה' בכי ואנקה מאין [עוד] פנות אל המנחה ולקחת רצון מידכם ואמרתם על מה על כי ה' העיד בינך ובין אשת נעוריך אשר אתה בגדתה בה והיא חברתך ואשת בריתך:
הדרן עלך המגרש וסליקא לה מסכת גיטין
הדרן עלך המגרש וסליקא לה מסכת גיטין
and with her garment open from both sides, and bathing with men, and ignores it. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a wife who bathes with men? Even a man of the lowest moral character would not allow his wife to act in this manner. Rather, the baraita means that she bathes in a place where men often bathe. The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house. If the second man merits, he will send her out, as it is stated in the following verse: “And the latter husband hates her…and he sends her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:3). And if not, she will bury him, as it is stated in the same verse: “Or if the latter husband dies.” It is appropriate for him to receive the punishment of death, as that first man evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second husband introduced a wicked woman into his house. § The prophet Malachi states in rebuke of those who divorce their wives: “For I hate sending away, says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse means that if you hate your wife, send her away. Do not continue living with a woman whom you hate. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse means that one who sends his wife away is hated by God. And the Gemara explains that they do not disagree. This statement is with regard to a first marriage, i.e., one should tolerate his first wife and not divorce her, and that statement is with regard to a second marriage, in which case the husband should divorce his wife if he hates her. As Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears over him, as it is stated: “And this further you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He does not regard the offering anymore, nor does He receive it with goodwill from your hand. Yet you say: What for? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:13–14). Clearly one should not divorce the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife, as one who does so is hated by God for divorcing the woman to whom he was bound in companionship and covenant.
(ז) הֲל֨וֹא פָרֹ֤ס לָֽרָעֵב֙ לַחְמֶ֔ךָ וַעֲנִיִּ֥ים מְרוּדִ֖ים תָּ֣בִיא בָ֑יִת כִּֽי־תִרְאֶ֤ה עָרֹם֙ וְכִסִּית֔וֹ וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִתְעַלָּֽם׃
(7) It is to share your bread with the hungry, And to take the wretched poor into your home; When you see the naked, to clothe him, And not to ignore your own kin.
(יא) צְאֶ֧ינָה ׀ וּֽרְאֶ֛ינָה בְּנ֥וֹת צִיּ֖וֹן בַּמֶּ֣לֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹ֑ה בָּעֲטָרָ֗ה שֶׁעִטְּרָה־לּ֤וֹ אִמּוֹ֙ בְּי֣וֹם חֲתֻנָּת֔וֹ וּבְי֖וֹם שִׂמְחַ֥ת לִבּֽוֹ׃ (ס)
(11) O maidens of Zion, go forth And gaze upon King Solomon Wearing the crown that his mother Gave him on his wedding day, On his day of bliss.
(ב) אֲנִ֥י יְשֵׁנָ֖ה וְלִבִּ֣י עֵ֑ר ק֣וֹל ׀ דּוֹדִ֣י דוֹפֵ֗ק פִּתְחִי־לִ֞י אֲחֹתִ֤י רַעְיָתִי֙ יוֹנָתִ֣י תַמָּתִ֔י שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי֙ נִמְלָא־טָ֔ל קְוֻּצּוֹתַ֖י רְסִ֥יסֵי לָֽיְלָה׃
(2) I was asleep, But my heart was wakeful. Hark, my beloved knocks! “Let me in, my own, My darling, my faultless dove! For my head is drenched with dew, My locks with the damp of night.”
(ד) אֱמֹ֣ר לַֽ֭חָכְמָה אֲחֹ֣תִי אָ֑תְּ וּ֝מֹדָ֗ע לַבִּינָ֥ה תִקְרָֽא׃
(4) Say to Wisdom, “You are my sister,” And call Understanding a kinswoman.
(ב) מִצְוַת הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ. זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ עַד שֶׁפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת פִּיו, וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הוּא אִם מֵת בְּיָדָם לֹא הָיוּ מְקַיְּמִין בּוֹ מִצְוַת שְׂרֵפָה, אֶלָּא פוֹתְחִין אֶת פִּיו בִּצְבָת שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָתוֹ וּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַפְּתִילָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו וְיוֹרֶדֶת לְתוֹךְ מֵעָיו וְחוֹמֶרֶת אֶת בְּנֵי מֵעָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן צָדוֹק, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַת כֹּהֵן אַחַת שֶׁזִּנְּתָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ חֲבִילֵי זְמוֹרוֹת וּשְׂרָפוּהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בֵית דִּין שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּקִי:
(2) The mitzva of those who are burned, i.e., the process of execution by burning, is carried out in the following manner: The executioners submerge the condemned one in dung up to his knees so he cannot move, and they place a rough scarf within a soft one, so his throat will not be wounded, and wrap these scarves around his neck. This one, i.e., one of the witnesses, pulls the scarf toward himself, and that one, the other witness, pulls it toward himself, until the condemned one is forced to open his mouth, as he is choking. And another person then lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Yehuda says: But if this one who is condemned to death by burning accidentally died at their hands by strangulation, they have not fulfilled the mitzva of execution by burning for this person. Rather, the process is carried out in the following manner: One opens the mouth of the condemned person with prongs, against his will, and one lights the wick and throws it into his mouth, and it goes down into his intestines and burns his intestines and he dies. Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.
דיקא נמי דכתיב (יהושע יד, ו) הקניזי ש"מ עזובה זו מרים ולמה נקרא שמה עזובה שהכל עזבוה מתחילתה הוליד והלא מינסב הוה נסיב לה א"ר יוחנן כל הנושא אשה לשם שמים מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדה יריעות שהיו פניה דומין ליריעות ואלה בניה אל תקרי בניה אלא בוניה ישר שישר את עצמו שובב ששיבב את יצרו וארדון שרדה את יצרו ואיכא דאמרי על שהיו פניה דומין לורד (דברי הימים א ד, ה) ולאשחור אבי תקוע היו שתי נשים חלאה ונערה אשחור זה כלב ולמה נקרא שמו אשחור שהושחרו פניו בתעניות אבי שנעשה לה כאב תקוע שתקע את לבו לאביו שבשמים היו שתי נשים נעשה מרים כשתי נשים חלאה ונערה לא חלאה ונערה הואי אלא בתחילה חלאה ולבסוף נערה (דברי הימים א ד, ז) ובני חלאה צרת וצהר ואתנן צרת שנעשית צרה לחברותיה צהר שהיו פניה דומין כצהרים אתנן שכל הרואה אותה מוליך אתנן לאשתו (שמות א, כב) ויצו פרעה לכל עמו א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אף על עמו גזר ואמר ר"י בר' חנינא שלש גזירות גזר בתחילה אם בן הוא והמתן אותו ולבסוף כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו ולבסוף אף על עמו גזר (שמות ב, א) וילך איש מבית לוי להיכן הלך אמר רב יהודה בר זבינא שהלך בעצת בתו תנא עמרם גדול הדור היה כיון (שראה שאמר) פרעה הרשע כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו אמר לשוא אנו עמלין עמד וגירש את אשתו עמדו כולן וגירשו את נשותיהן אמרה לו בתו אבא קשה גזירתך יותר משל פרעה שפרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים ואתה גזרת על הזכרים ועל הנקיבות פרעה לא גזר אלא בעוה"ז ואתה בעוה"ז ולעוה"ב פרעה הרשע ספק מתקיימת גזירתו ספק אינה מתקיימת אתה צדיק בודאי שגזירתך מתקיימת שנאמר (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך עמד והחזיר את אשתו עמדו כולן והחזירו את נשותיהן ויקח ויחזור מיבעי ליה א"ר יהודה בר זבינא שעשה לו מעשה ליקוחין הושיבה באפריון ואהרן ומרים מרקדין לפניה ומלאכי השרת אמרו (תהלים קיג, ט) אם הבנים שמחה את בת לוי אפשר בת מאה ושלשים שנה הויא וקרי לה בת דא"ר חמא בר' חנינא זו יוכבד שהורתה בדרך ולידתה בין החומות שנאמר (במדבר כו, נט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים א"ר יהודה שנולדו בה סימני נערות (שמות ב, ב) ותהר האשה ותלד בן והא הות מיעברא ביה תלתא ירחי מעיקרא א"ר יהודה בר זבינא מקיש לידתה להורתה מה הורתה שלא בצער אף לידתה שלא בצער מכאן לנשים צדקניות שלא היו בפיתקה של חוה (שמות ב, ב) ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא תניא ר"מ אומר טוב שמו ר' יהודה אומר טוביה שמו רבי נחמיה אומר הגון לנביאות אחרים אומרים נולד כשהוא מהול וחכמים אומרים בשעה שנולד משה נתמלא הבית כולו אור כתיב הכא ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא וכתיב התם (בראשית א, ד) וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב (שמות ב, ב) ותצפנהו שלשה ירחים דלא מנו מצרים אלא משעה דאהדרה והיא הות מיעברא ביה תלתא ירחי מעיקרא (שמות ב, ג) ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו אמאי תצפניה ותיזיל אלא כל היכא דהוו שמעי מצראי דמתיליד ינוקא ממטו ינוקא התם כי היכי דלישמעינהו ומעוי (בהדיהו) דכתיב (שיר השירים ב, טו) אחזו לנו שועלים שועלים קטנים וגו' (שמות ב, ג) ותקח לו תבת גמא מאי שנא גומא א"ר אלעזר מיכן לצדיקים שממונם חביב עליהן יותר מגופן וכל כך למה לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר דבר רך שיכול לעמוד בפני דבר רך ובפני דבר קשה ותחמרה בחמר ובזפת תנא חמר מבפנים וזפת מבחוץ כדי שלא יריח אותו צדיק ריח רע ותשם בה את הילד ותשם בסוף רבי אלעזר אומר ים סוף רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר
The Gemara comments: The language of another verse is also precise based on this explanation, as it is written: “And Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said unto him” (Joshua 14:6). Although his father was Jephunneh, he is known as “the Kenizzite,” although he was not actually a son of Kenaz. The Gemara accepts this proof and states: Conclude from it that Rava’s explanation is correct. The verse states: “And Caleb, the son of Hezron, begot children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth, and these were her sons: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon” (I Chronicles 2:18). The Gemara analyzes the verse: The verse refers to the wife of Caleb by the name Azubah. The Sages teach that this is Miriam. And why is she called Azubah? As everyone initially abandoned her [azavuha] and did not want to marry her because she was sickly and unattractive. The verse additionally states: “And Caleb, the son of Hezron, begot children [holid] of Azubah his wife” (I Chronicles 2:18). The Gemara asks: Why use the term “holid,” begot children? But doesn’t this verse state that he married her? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches us that with regard to anyone who marries a woman for the sake of Heaven, as he married her due to her righteousness without concern for her appearance, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to her. The same verse refers to Miriam additionally as Jerioth, which the Gemara explains was appropriate, for her face was like extremely pallid curtains [yeriot]. The verse continues: “And these were her sons [vaneha].” The Gemara explains: Do not read it as vaneha, her sons; rather, read it as boneha, her builders. In other words, the rest of the names in the verse are not the names of her children, but rather appellations for her husband, whose marriage to her built her, as it were. The first appellation for Caleb, “Jesher,” is referring to his actions, as he set himself straight [yisher] and did not join in the counsel of the spies. The second appellation, “Shobab,” is referring to the fact that he broke [sibbev] his evil inclination by rebelling against the other spies. The third appellation, “and Ardon [veArdon],” is referring to the fact that he ruled [rada] over his evil inclination. And some say: Because the face of his wife Miriam became beautiful like a rose [vered] after they were married, she was also called Vardon, due to her rose-like complexion. The Gemara interprets an additional verse as referring to Caleb. It is stated: “And Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah” (I Chronicles 4:5). Ashhur is Caleb. And why was he called Ashhur? Because his face became blackened [husheḥaru] from the extensive fasts that he accepted upon himself so that he would not be entrapped by the counsel of the spies. “The father of” is also referring to Caleb, as he became like a father to his wife. The next word in the verse, “Tekoa,” is an additional reference to Caleb, as he attached [taka] his heart to his Father in Heaven. The phrase in the verse “had two wives” actually means it is as if Miriam became like two wives, because she changed over the course of time. And therefore the two names written in the verse: “Helah and Naarah,” were not two separate women, Helah and Naarah. Rather, initially Miriam was sickly [ḥela] and forlorn, and ultimately she was healthy and beautiful like a young woman [na’ara]. The Gemara expounds the following verse as referring to Miriam: “And the children of Helah were Zereth [Tzeret] and Zohar and Ethnan” (I Chronicles 4:7). She was now called “Tzeret,” for she became so beautiful that she was like a rival [tzara] to other women, as they were jealous of her beauty. She is called “Zohar,” as her face shined like the sun does at noon [tzohorayim]. She is called “Ethnan,” as any man that saw her would be aroused so much that he would bring a gift [etnan] to his wife to entice her. § The Gemara returns to the discussion of the bondage in Egypt. “And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The use of the phrase “every son that is born” indicates that he decreed even on his own nation that all their male babies must be killed. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says further: He decreed three decrees. Initially, he commanded the midwives only with regard to Jewish infants: “You shall look upon the stones. If it be a son, then you shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live” (Exodus 1:16). And afterward, he decreed with regard to the Jewish infants: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the river” (Exodus 1:22). And ultimately, he decreed even on his own nation that Egyptian infant boys should be cast into the river as well. The verse states: “And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took for a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: To where did he go? Rav Yehuda bar Zevina says: He went according to the advice of his daughter Miriam, as the Gemara will proceed to explain. A Sage teaches: Amram, the father of Moses, was the great man of his generation. Once he saw that the wicked Pharaoh said: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22), he said: We are laboring for nothing by bringing children into the world to be killed. Therefore, he arose and divorced his wife. All others who saw this followed his example and arose and divorced their wives. His daughter, Miriam, said to him: Father, your decree is more harsh for the Jewish people than that of Pharaoh, as Pharaoh decreed only with regard to the males, but you decreed both on the males and on the females. And now no children will be born. Additionally, Pharaoh decreed to kill them only in this world, but you decreed in this world and in the World-to-Come, as those not born will not enter the World-to-Come. Miriam continued: Additionally, concerning Pharaoh the wicked, it is uncertain whether his decree will be fulfilled, and it is uncertain if his decree will not be fulfilled. You are a righteous person, and as such, your decrees will certainly be fulfilled, as it is stated with regard to the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you” (Job 22:28). Amram accepted his daughter’s words and arose and brought back, i.e., remarried, his wife, and all others who saw this followed his example and arose and brought back their wives. The Gemara asks: If Amram remarried Jochebed, rather than say: “And took for a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1), it should have stated: “And returned for a wife the daughter of Levi.” Rav Yehuda bar Zevina says: He performed an act of marriage just as one would do for a first marriage. He sat her on a palanquin [appiryon], and Aaron and Miriam danced before her, and the ministering angels said: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9). The verse is referring to Jochebed as “a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that this is Jochebed? Jochebed was then 130 years old and the verse still calls her a daughter? Jochebed’s age is established based on a tradition concerning the number of the descendants of Jacob who came to Egypt, as follows: While the verse states that Leah had thirty-three descendants (Genesis 46:15), only thirty-two were enumerated. This was explained as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The “daughter of Levi” is Jochebed, whose conception was on the road, as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, and she was born between the walls, i.e., in Egypt, as it is stated: “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt” (Numbers 26:59). This interpolation concerning her birth is interpreted: Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. Since the Jewish people were in Egypt for two hundred ten years and Moses was eighty years old at the time of the exodus, Jochebed was one hundred thirty years old when Moses was born. In light of this, the Gemara is asking how the verse can refer to her as a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The signs of a young woman were born in her when her husband remarried her, and she became like a young girl again. § The verse states concerning Moses: “And the woman conceived, and bore a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months” (Exodus 2:2). The Gemara asks: But Jochebed was pregnant with Moses for three months at the outset, before Amram remarried her, as will be explained further. Rav Yehuda bar Zevina said: The intention of the verse is to juxtapose her giving birth to her becoming pregnant. Just as her becoming pregnant was without pain, so too, her giving birth was without pain. From here it is derived concerning righteous women that they were not included in the verdict [pitkah] of Eve that a woman will suffer pain during childbirth (see Genesis 3:16). The verse states with regard to the birth of Moses: “And the woman conceived, and bore a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly [tov] child, she hid him three months” (Exodus 2:2). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: “Tov” is his, Moses’, real name, as it was given to him by his parents when he was born. Rabbi Yehuda says: His name was Toviya. Rabbi Neḥemya says: They said he was good because they saw that he was fit for prophecy. Others say: They said he was good because he was born when he was already circumcised. And the Rabbis say: At the time when Moses was born, the entire house was filled with light, as it is written here: “And when she saw him that he was a goodly [tov] child,” and it is written there: “And God saw the light, that it was good [tov]” (Genesis 1:4). The verse continues: “And she hid him three months” (Exodus 2:2). The Gemara explains that she was able to hide him for three months because the Egyptians counted the nine months of her pregnancy only from the time her husband took her back, but she was pregnant with Moses for three months from the outset of her remarriage. The next verse states: “And when she could no longer hide him” (Exodus 2:3). The Gemara asks: Why couldn’t she hide him any longer? Let her continue to hide him. Rather, anywhere that the Egyptians heard that a baby was born and they wanted to locate the baby, they would bring another baby there in order that it could be heard crying, and the two babies would cry together, as it is written: “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom” (Song of Songs 2:15). The infants who were used to uncover the hidden babies are referred to as little foxes. The verse states: “And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with bitumen and with pitch; and she put the child therein, and laid it in the willows by the river’s bank” (Exodus 2:3). The Gemara asks: What is different about bulrushes that she decided to use them? Rabbi Elazar says: From here it is derived concerning righteous people that their money is more precious to them than their bodies, as she took an inexpensive material to build the ark. And why do they care so much about their money? Because they do not stretch out their hands to partake of stolen property. Therefore, their own property is very precious to them. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says an alternative reason for her taking bulrushes for the ark: She took a soft material like bulrush, which is able to withstand an impact both before a soft item and before a hard item. She feared that if she would have made the box from a hard material like wood, if it were to collide with a hard item in the water it might break. The verse continues: “And daubed it with bitumen and with pitch” (Exodus 2:3). A Sage teaches: She daubed bitumen on the interior and pitch on the exterior, so that righteous person, i.e., Moses, would not smell a foul odor, such as that of pitch. The verse continues: “And she put the child therein, and laid it in the willows [bassuf ]” (Exodus 2:3). Rabbi Elazar says: This means she placed him in the Suf Sea, i.e., the Red Sea. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says:
אלא לאביי מאי ניזון כבת ולטעמיך לרבא מאי יורש כבן אלא ראוי לירש ואין לו ה"נ ראוי לזון ואין לו: האומר אם ילדה אשתי זכר וכו': למימרא דבת עדיפא ליה מבן והא אמר ר' יוחנן משום רשב"י כל שאינו מניח בן ליורשו הקב"ה מלא עליו עברה שנאמר (במדבר כז, ח) והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו ואין העברה אלא עברה שנאמר (צפניה א, טו) יום עברה היום ההוא לענין ירושה בן עדיף ליה לענין הרווחה בתו עדיפא ליה ושמואל אמר הכא במבכרת עסקינן וכדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא בת תחלה סימן יפה לבנים איכא דאמרי דמרביא לאחהא ואיכא דאמרי דלא שלטא ביה עינא בישא אמר רב חסדא ולדידי בנתן עדיפן לי מבני ואיבעית אימא הא מני ר' יהודה היא הי רבי יהודה אילימא רבי יהודה דבכל דתניא (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת ובכל שמה אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה ברתא נמי לא חסריה רחמנא לאברהם דעדיפא מבן מי שמעת ליה אלא הא רבי יהודה דתניא מצוה לזון את הבנות וק"ו לבנים דעסקי בתורה דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר מצוה לזון את הבנים וק"ו לבנות דלא ליתזלן אלא הא דתניא ילדה זכר ונקבה הזכר נוטל ששה דינרין והנקבה נוטלת שני דינרין במאי אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא במסרס דאמר זכר תחלה מאתים נקבה אחריו ולא כלום נקבה תחלה מנה זכר אחריה מנה וילדה זכר ונקבה ולא ידעינן הי מינייהו נפק ברישא זכר שקיל מנה ממה נפשך אידך מנה הוה ממון המוטל בספק וחולקין והא דתניא ילדה זכר ונקבה אין לו אלא מנה היכי משכחת לה אמר רבינא במבשרני
But according to the opinion of Abaye, what does it mean that the tumtum is sustained as a daughter, since Abaye maintains that the tumtum does not have the rights of a daughter? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, even according to Rava, what does it mean that a tumtum inherits as a son, since Rava concedes that the tumtum and sons do not actually inherit anything? Rather, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to inherit but he does not actually inherit. Here too, with regard to sustenance, according to Abaye, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to be sustained, but he is not actually sustained. § The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha’avartem] to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term ha’avara means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath [evra]” (Zephaniah 1:15). The Gemara resolves the contradiction: With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father’s tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring’s comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son, as a son is more capable of coping for himself and the daughter needs more support. And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father. Rav Ḥisda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons. The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say: In accordance with whose statement is this mishna in which preference is given to the daughter? It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yehuda is this referring to? If we say it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the term “with everything [bakkol],” that is difficult. The Gemara cites Rabbi Yehuda’s statement. As it is taught in a baraita: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1). Rabbi Meir says: The blessing was that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The blessing was that he had a daughter, and her name was Bakkol. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda understands the birth of a daughter to be a blessing. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda explain that the blessing was that the Merciful One did not even deprive Abraham of a daughter, in addition to his sons. Did you hear him say that a daughter is preferable to a son? The Gemara proposes another of Rabbi Yehuda’s statements: Rather, it is referring to this other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: One is not halakhically obligated to provide sustenance for his children beyond the age of six. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the daughters. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for sons, who are engaged in the study of the Torah; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the sons. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for daughters, so that they not be disgraced by having to beg for their livelihood. This indicates that with regard to providing sustenance for one’s children, Rabbi Yehuda gives preference to the daughters. § The mishna discusses a case where one stipulated that if his wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars. The mishna states that if she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male receives one hundred dinars and the female receives two hundred. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If she gave birth to a male and a female, the male receives six dinars of gold, which are equivalent to one hundred fifty dinars of silver, and the female receives two dinars of gold, equivalent to fifty dinars of silver, with what situation is this baraita dealing? Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he explained it as teaching about one who inverted the stipulations of his gift. The baraita is referring to one who said: If a male is born first he will receive two hundred dinars, and if a female is born after him she will receive nothing. And if a female is born first she will receive one hundred dinars, and if a male is born after her he will receive one hundred dinars. And the mother gave birth to a male and a female, but we do not know which of them emerged from the womb first. In this case, the male takes one hundred dinars, as whichever way you look at it, this sum is due to him. The other one hundred dinars are property of uncertain ownership and are divided equally between the male and female. The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which is taught in another baraita: If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars, how can you find these circumstances? Ravina said: This is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me.
דלי ציפתא ואמר ליה לשלוחא חזי מאי איכא מיהו לא ניחא לי דאיתהני בהדין עלמא ר' עקיבא איתקדשת ליה ברתיה (דבר) דכלבא שבוע שמע (בר) כלבא שבוע אדרה הנאה מכל נכסיה אזלא ואיתנסיבה ליה בסיתוא הוה גנו בי תיבנא הוה קא מנקיט ליה תיבנא מן מזייה אמר לה אי הואי לי רמינא ליך ירושלים דדהבא אתא אליהו אידמי להון כאנשא וקא קרי אבבא אמר להו הבו לי פורתא דתיבנא דילדת אתתי ולית לי מידעם לאגונה אמר לה ר' עקיבא לאנתתיה חזי גברא דאפילו תיבנא לא אית ליה אמרה ליה זיל הוי בי רב אזל תרתי סרי שנין קמי דר' אליעזר ור' יהושע למישלם תרתי סרי שנין קא אתא לביתיה שמע מן אחורי ביתיה דקאמר לה חד רשע לדביתהו שפיר עביד ליך אבוך חדא דלא דמי ליך ועוד [שבקך] ארמלות חיות כולהון שנין אמרה ליה אי צאית לדילי ליהוי תרתי סרי שנין אחרנייתא אמר הואיל ויהבת לי רשותא איהדר לאחורי הדר אזל הוה תרתי סרי שני אחרנייתא אתא בעשרין וארבעה אלפין זוגי תלמידי נפוק כולי עלמא לאפיה ואף היא קמת למיפק לאפיה אמר לה ההוא רשיעא ואת להיכא אמרה ליה (משלי יב, י) יודע צדיק נפש בהמתו אתת לאיתחזויי ליה קא מדחן לה רבנן אמר להון הניחו לה שלי ושלכם שלה הוא שמע (בר) כלבא שבוע אתא ואיתשיל על נידריה ואשתריי ואשתרי מן שית מילי איעתר רבי עקיבא מן כלבא שבוע מן אילא דספינתא דכל ספינתא עבדין ליה מין עינא זימנא חדא אנשיוה על כיף ימא אתא הוא אשכחיה ומן גווזא דזימנא חדא יהיב ארבעה זוזי לספונאי אמר להו אייתי לי מדעם ולא אשכחו אלא גווזא על כיף ימא אתיוה ליה אמרו ליה עביד מרנא עליה אישתכח דהוה מלי דינרי דזימנא חדא טבעת ספינתא וכולי עיסקא הוה מחית בההוא גווזא ואישתכח בההוא זימנא דמן דסרוקיתא ומן מטרוניתא
He lifted the mat [tzifeta] upon which he was sitting and said to the messenger: See what there is here. The place was miraculously filled with gold dinars. This demonstrated that Rabbi Yehuda could have had plenty of money if he had so desired. He explained: However, it is not amenable to me to derive benefit in this world. § In connection to the above incident concerning the poverty of scholars and their potential to become wealthy through remarkable circumstances, the Gemara relates an incident: Rabbi Akiva became betrothed to the daughter of bar Kalba Savua. When bar Kalba Savua heard about their betrothal, he took a vow prohibiting her from eating all of his property. Despite this, she went ahead and married Rabbi Akiva. In the winter they would sleep in a storehouse of straw, and Rabbi Akiva would gather strands of straw from her hair. He said to her: If I had the means I would place on your head a Jerusalem of Gold, a type of crown. Elijah the prophet came and appeared to them as a regular person and started calling and knocking on the door. He said to them: Give me a bit of straw, as my wife gave birth and I do not have anything on which to lay her. Rabbi Akiva said to his wife: See this man, who does not even have straw. We should be happy with our lot, as we at least have straw to sleep on. She said to him: Go and be a student of Torah. He went and studied Torah for twelve years before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. At the completion of the twelve years, he was coming home when he heard from behind his house that one wicked person was saying to his wife: Your father behaved well toward you. He was right to disinherit you. One reason is that your husband is not similar to you, i.e., he is not suitable for you. And furthermore, he has left you in widowhood in his lifetime all these years. She said to him: If he listens to me, he should be there for another twelve years. Rabbi Akiva said: Since she has given me permission through this statement, I will go back and study more. He turned back and went to the study hall, and he was there for another twelve years. Eventually he came back accompanied by 24,000 pairs of students. Everyone went out to greet him, as he was by then a renowned teacher, and she too arose to go out to greet him. That wicked person said to her: And to where are you going? As she was excessively poor, she was not dressed in a grand manner, as fit for the wife of one so esteemed. She said to him: “A righteous man regards the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10); he knows that I am in this state as a result of my dedication to him. She came to present herself before Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages tried to fend her off, as they were unaware of her identity. He said to them: Leave her. Both my Torah knowledge and yours are hers. When bar Kalba Savua heard that the famous man was his son-in-law, he came before halakhic authorities and requested the dissolution of his vow, and it was dissolved. The Gemara adds: Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from six things. First, from the money he received from Kalba Savua after his vow was dissolved. Second, he gained money from the ram of a ship [eila disfineta], as craftsmen would fashion a sculpture of a type of sheep for every ship, which would be placed on its bow, and which would be used to conceal money. On one occasion, the sailors forgot this ram on the seashore, and Rabbi Akiva came and found it with the money stored inside. And third, he became wealthy from a log [gavza] of wood, as on one occasion he gave four dinars to sailors and said to them: Bring me something worthwhile. And they found only a log of wood on the seashore. They brought it to him and said to him: May our master wait with this until we bring a more worthy item. He found that the log was full of dinars, as on one occasion a ship sunk and all the merchandise, i.e., the money, owned by the people on the ship was placed in that log, and it was found on that occasion by the sailors. Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from a convoy of Ishmaelites [Serukita]. And he became wealthy from a certain lady. Rabbi Akiva borrowed money from a lady and said that God would be his guarantor. When it came time to return the loan, the king’s daughter became insane and threw a purse of jewelry into the sea, which was found by that lady. She told Rabbi Akiva that his guarantor had paid his debt and she allowed him to keep the loan.
(דברי הימים ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד: עד שיזקין עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר ר' חנינא עד שירתת תנן התם בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל טמא ר' יוסי אומר בחולה ובזקן טמא בילד ובבריא טהור ילד עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי חנינא כל שעומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא שהיה בן שמונים שנה והיה עומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמר רבי חנינא חמין ושמן שסכתני אמי בילדותי הן עמדו לי בעת זקנותי ת"ר נתמלא זקנו ראוי ליעשות שליח ציבור ולירד לפני התיבה ולישא את כפיו מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות רבי אומר אומר אני עד שיהא בן עשרים א"ר חסדא מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (עזרא ג, ח) ויעמידו [את] הלוים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לנצח על מלאכת בית ה' ואידך לנצח שאני והא האי קרא בלוים כתיב כדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יז) איש מזרעך לדורותם מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר קטן פסול לעבודה ואפי' תם מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות אבל אחיו הכהנים אין מניחין אותו לעבוד עד שיהא בן כ' איכא דאמרי הא רבי היא ואפי' פסול דרבנן לית ליה ואיכא דאמרי רבי אית ליה פסול מדרבנן והא רבנן היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא אבל דיעבד עבודתו כשרה: מתני׳ טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש: גמ׳ ת"ר אויר כלי חרש טמא וגבו טהור אויר כל הכלים טהור וגבן טמא נמצא טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש מנהני מילי דת"ר תוכו ואע"פ שלא נגע אתה אומר אע"פ שלא נגע או אינו אלא אם כן נגע רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר נאמר (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו לטמא ונאמר תוכו ליטמא מה תוכו האמור לטמא אע"פ שלא נגע אף תוכו האמור ליטמא אע"פ שלא נגע והתם מנלן אמר רבי יונתן התורה העידה על כלי חרס
“It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service. The baraita teaches that the priest is eligible for service until he ages. The Gemara asks: Until when, i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until his hands and feet begin to tremble. We learned in a mishna there (Mikvaot 8:4): With regard to one who experienced a seminal emission who then immersed in a ritual bath and did not urinate before immersing, when he urinates he is ritually impure, because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of an ill person and an elderly person, he is ritually impure; in the case of a young person and a healthy person, he is ritually pure, as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset. Until when is one considered a young person? Rabbi Ela says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who is able to stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe is considered young. They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age. The Sages taught: If one’s beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction. From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). And what does the other tanna hold? He holds that to oversee is different and requires an older priest. The Gemara asks: But what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? The Gemara answers: It is understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor priest is unfit for Temple service, even if he is unblemished, as he is not a man. From when is he fit for service? From the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty years of age. There are those who say: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is of the opinion that there is no disqualification for one between puberty and twenty years of age even by rabbinic law. The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service ab initio. And there are those who say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that there is disqualification by rabbinic law in that case, and this statement in the baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, and they hold that it is ab initio that one may not perform the service, but after the fact, his service is valid. MISHNA: That which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other types of vessels; that which is ritually pure in all the other types of vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of an earthenware vessel the vessel is ritually impure, and if it fell on its outer side, the vessel is ritually pure. If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the airspace of all the other types of vessels, the vessels are ritually pure, and if it fell on their outer side, they are ritually impure. It is found that that which is ritually pure in an earthenware vessel is ritually impure in all the other vessels, and that which is ritually pure in all the other vessels is ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [tokho] any of them falls, whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell “in it [tokho],” and even in a case where the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure. The baraita continues: Do you say that it is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, or perhaps it is impure only if it did come into contact with the vessel? Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: Tokho is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [tokho] shall be impure,” and tokho is stated with regard to becoming impure, as it is stated: “Into which [tokho] any of them falls”; just as in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to transmitting impurity to food in its airspace, the food is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with the vessel, so too, in the case of tokho that is stated with regard to the vessel becoming impure, the vessel is impure even if the impure item did not come into contact with it. The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, from where do we derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel
(כג) וָאֶתְחַנַּ֖ן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹֽר׃
(23) I pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying,
(כג) וָאֶתְחַנַּ֖ן אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִ֖וא לֵאמֹֽר׃
(23) I pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying,
גסטרא של בית פעור הראנו היכן משה קבור עמדו למעלה נדמה להם למטה למטה נדמה להם למעלה נחלקו לשתי כיתות אותן שעומדים למעלה נדמה להן למטה למטה נדמה להן למעלה לקיים מה שנאמר (דברים לד, ו) ולא ידע איש את קבורתו ר' חמא בר' חנינא אמר אף משה רבינו אינו יודע היכן קבור כתיב הכא ולא ידע איש את קבורתו וכתיב התם (דברים לג, א) וזאת הברכה אשר ברך משה איש האלהים וא"ר חמא ברבי חנינא מפני מה נקבר משה אצל בית פעור כדי לכפר על מעשה פעור ואמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (דברים יג, ה) אחרי ה' אלהיכם תלכו וכי אפשר לו לאדם להלך אחר שכינה והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ד, כד) כי ה' אלהיך אש אוכלה הוא אלא להלך אחר מדותיו של הקב"ה מה הוא מלביש ערומים דכתיב (בראשית ג, כא) ויעש ה' אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם אף אתה הלבש ערומים הקב"ה ביקר חולים דכתיב (בראשית יח, א) וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא אף אתה בקר חולים הקב"ה ניחם אבלים דכתיב (בראשית כה, יא) ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך אלהים את יצחק בנו אף אתה נחם אבלים הקב"ה קבר מתים דכתיב (דברים לד, ו) ויקבר אותו בגיא אף אתה קבור מתים כתנות עור רב ושמואל חד אמר דבר הבא מן העור וחד אמר דבר שהעור נהנה ממנו דרש ר' שמלאי תורה תחלתה גמילות חסדים וסופה גמילות חסדים תחילתה גמילות חסדים דכתיב ויעש ה' אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם וסופה גמילות חסדים דכתיב ויקבר אותו בגיא דרש רבי שמלאי מפני מה נתאוה משה רבינו ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפריה הוא צריך או לשבוע מטובה הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני לארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי אמר לו הקב"ה כלום אתה מבקש אלא לקבל שכר מעלה אני עליך כאילו עשיתם שנאמר (ישעיהו נג, יב) לכן אחלק לו ברבים ואת עצומים יחלק שלל תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו ואת פושעים נמנה והוא חטא רבים נשא ולפושעים יפגיע לכן אחלק לו ברבים יכול כאחרונים ולא כראשונים ת"ל ואת עצומים יחלק שלל כאברהם יצחק ויעקב שהן עצומים בתורה ובמצות תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו שמסר עצמו למיתה שנאמר (שמות לב, לב) ואם אין מחני נא וגו' ואת פושעים נמנה שנמנה עם מתי מדבר והוא חטא רבים נשא שכיפר על מעשה העגל ולפושעים יפגיע שביקש רחמים על פושעי ישראל שיחזרו בתשובה ואין פגיעה אלא תפלה שנאמר (ירמיהו ז, טז) ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפלה ואל תפגע בי
הדרן עלך המקנא לאשתו
מתני׳ היה מביא את מנחתה בתוך כפיפה מצרית ונותנה על ידיה כדי ליגעה כל המנחות תחילתן וסופן בכלי שרת וזו תחלתה בכפיפה מצרית וסופה בכלי שרת כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה וזו אינה טעונה לא שמן ולא לבונה כל המנחות באות מן החטין וזו באה מן השעורין מנחת העומר אע"פ שבאה מן השעורין היא היתה באה גרש וזו באה קמח ר"ג אומר כשם שמעשיה מעשה בהמה כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה גמ׳ תניא אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר (וכל כך למה) כדי ליגעה כדי שתחזור בה אם ככה חסה תורה על עוברי רצונו קל וחומר על עושי רצונו וממאי משום דחסה הוא דילמא כי היכי דלא תימחק מגילה קסבר
הדרן עלך המקנא לאשתו
מתני׳ היה מביא את מנחתה בתוך כפיפה מצרית ונותנה על ידיה כדי ליגעה כל המנחות תחילתן וסופן בכלי שרת וזו תחלתה בכפיפה מצרית וסופה בכלי שרת כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה וזו אינה טעונה לא שמן ולא לבונה כל המנחות באות מן החטין וזו באה מן השעורין מנחת העומר אע"פ שבאה מן השעורין היא היתה באה גרש וזו באה קמח ר"ג אומר כשם שמעשיה מעשה בהמה כך קרבנה מאכל בהמה גמ׳ תניא אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר (וכל כך למה) כדי ליגעה כדי שתחזור בה אם ככה חסה תורה על עוברי רצונו קל וחומר על עושי רצונו וממאי משום דחסה הוא דילמא כי היכי דלא תימחק מגילה קסבר
the garrison [gastera] of Beth Peor and said to them: Show us where Moses is buried. As the men stood above on the upper section of the mountain, it appeared to them as if the grave was below in the lower section. As they stood below, it appeared to them to be above. They divided into two groups, one above and one below. To those who were standing above, the grave appeared to them to be below; to those who were standing below, the grave appeared to them to be above, to fulfill that which is stated: “And no man knows of his grave to this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Even Moses our teacher himself does not know where he is buried. It is written here: “And no man knows of his grave,” and it is written there: “And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death” (Deuteronomy 33:1). In other words, even Moses, as he is referred to by the term “man,” does not know his burial place. And Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: For what reason was Moses buried near Beth Peor? In order to atone for the incident that transpired at Beth Peor (Numbers, chapter 25). 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. 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. The Gemara discusses the verse: “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the meaning of the term “garments of skin.” One says that these garments were made of something that comes from the skin, and one says that these garments were something from which the skin benefits. 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). Rabbi Samlai taught: For what reason did Moses our teacher greatly desire to enter Eretz Yisrael? Did he need to eat of its produce, or did he need to satisfy himself from its goodness? Rather, this is what Moses said: Many mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people, and some of them can be fulfilled only in Eretz Yisrael, so I will enter the land in order that they can all be fulfilled by me. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Do you seek to enter the land to perform these mitzvot for any reason other than to receive a reward? I will ascribe you credit as if you had performed them and you will receive your reward, as it is stated: “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Rabbi Samlai proceeds to expound the verse “Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great” to mean that he will receive reward. One might have thought that he will receive reward like the later ones and not like the earlier ones, so the verse states: “And he shall divide the spoil with the mighty,” meaning like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were mighty in Torah and in mitzvot. “Because he bared his soul unto death,” meaning he gave himself over to death on behalf of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Yet now, if You will forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray You, out of Your book that You have written” (Exodus 32:32). “And was numbered with the transgressors,” meaning that he was counted among those who died in the desert, for, just like them, he did not enter Eretz Yisrael. “Yet he bore the sin of many,” as he atoned for the incident of the Golden Calf. “And made intercession [yafgia] for the transgressors,” as he requested mercy for the sinners of Israel so that they should engage in repentance. And the word pegia means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “Therefore pray not you for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession [tifga] to Me; for I will not hear you” (Jeremiah 7:16). MISHNA: The husband of the sota would bring his wife’s meal-offering to the priest in an Egyptian wicker basket made of palm branches, and he would place the meal-offering in her hands for her to hold throughout the ritual in order to fatigue her. This might lead her to confess her guilt and not drink the water of a sota unnecessarily. The mishna lists differences between this meal-offering and other meal-offerings. Generally, all meal-offerings, from their beginnings, i.e., the moment they are consecrated, and until their ends, i.e., the moment they are sacrificed, must be in a service vessel. But in the case of this one, its beginning is in a wicker basket and only at its end, immediately before it is offered, is it placed in a service vessel. All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and this one requires neither oil nor frankincense. Furthermore, all other meal-offerings are brought from wheat, and this one is brought from barley. Although in fact the omer meal-offering is also brought from barley, it is still different in that it was brought as groats, i.e., high-quality meal. The meal-offering of the sota, however, is brought as unsifted barley flour. Rabban Gamliel says: This hints that just as her actions of seclusion with another man were the actions of an animal, so too her offering is animal food, i.e., barley and not wheat. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Abba Ḥanin says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And why is so much done to her? It is in order to fatigue her, so that she will retract and confess her guilt and be spared death. And if the Torah is so protective of those who transgress His will, i.e., the sota, who secluded herself with the man she was warned against, then by a fortiori inference He is protective of those who do His will. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that they attempt to induce her to confess because the Torah is protective of the sota? Perhaps it is in order that the scroll of the sota, containing the name of God, will not be erased. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Eliezer holds
מַתְנִי׳ הָרוֹאֶה מָקוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בּוֹ נִסִּים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁעָשָׂה נִסִּים לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה״. מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה מִמֶּנּוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁעָקַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מֵאַרְצֵנוּ״. עַל הַזִּיקִין, וְעַל הַזְּוָעוֹת, וְעַל הָרְעָמִים, וְעַל הָרוּחוֹת, וְעַל הַבְּרָקִים אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁכֹּחוֹ וּגְבוּרָתוֹ מָלֵא עוֹלָם״. עַל הֶהָרִים, וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְעַל הַיַּמִּים, וְעַל הַנְּהָרוֹת, וְעַל הַמִּדְבָּרוֹת אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … עוֹשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אוֹמֵר: הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה אֶת הַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁרוֹאֵהוּ לִפְרָקִים. עַל הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְעַל בְּשׂוֹרוֹת טוֹבוֹת אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״. עַל בְּשׂוֹרוֹת רָעוֹת אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ דַּיַּין הָאֱמֶת״. בָּנָה בַּיִת חָדָשׁ, וְקָנָה כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ וְקִיְּימָנוּ וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה״. מְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה מֵעֵין עַל הַטּוֹבָה, וְעַל הַטּוֹבָה מֵעֵין עַל הָרָעָה. וְהַצּוֹעֵק לְשֶׁעָבַר — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּפִלַּת שָׁוְא. הָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאוֹמֵר: ״יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁתֵּלֵד אִשְׁתִּי זָכָר״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּפִלַּת שָׁוְא. הָיָה בָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְשָׁמַע קוֹל צְוָחָה בָּעִיר, וְאוֹמֵר: ״יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּפִלַּת שָׁוְא. הַנִּכְנָס לִכְרַךְ מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְאַחַת בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אַרְבַּע, שְׁתַּיִם בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וּשְׁתַּיִם בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. נוֹתֵן הוֹדָאָה עַל שֶׁעָבַר וְצוֹעֵק עַל הֶעָתִיד. חַיָּיב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכׇל לְבָבְךָ וְגוֹ׳״. ״בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ״ — בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ, בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר הָרָע. ״וּבְכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ״ — אֲפִילּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ. ״וּבְכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״ — בְּכָל מָמוֹנְךָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ״ — בְּכָל מִדָּה וּמִדָּה שֶׁהוּא מוֹדֵד לְךָ הֱוֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ. לֹא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁהוּא מְכוּוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס לְהַר הַבַּיִת בְּמַקְלוֹ, וּבְמִנְעָלוֹ, וּבְפוּנְדָּתוֹ, וּבְאָבָק שֶׁעַל רַגְלָיו. וְלָא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא. וּרְקִיקָה — מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. כׇּל חוֹתְמֵי בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״עַד הָעוֹלָם״. מִשֶּׁקִּלְקְלוּ הַמִּינִין וְאָמְרוּ אֵין עוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֶחָד, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים ״מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם״. וְהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם שׁוֹאֵל אֶת שְׁלוֹם חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִנֵּה בֹעַז בָּא מִבֵּית לֶחֶם וַיֹּאמֶר לַקּוֹצְרִים ה׳ עִמָּכֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״ה׳ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״אַל תָּבוּז כִּי זָקְנָה אִמֶּךָ״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״ מִשּׁוּם ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳״. גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיֹּאמֶר יִתְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ ה׳ אֲשֶׁר הִצִּיל וְגוֹ׳״. אַנִּיסָּא דְרַבִּים מְבָרְכִינַן, אַנִּיסָּא דְיָחִיד לָא מְבָרְכִינַן?! וְהָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא אָזֵיל בַּעֲבַר יַמִּינָא. נְפַל עֲלֵיהּ אַרְיָא, אִתְעֲבִיד לֵיהּ נִיסָּא וְאִיתַּצַּל מִינֵּיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל אִימַּת דְּמָטֵית לְהָתָם — בָּרֵיךְ ״בָּרוּךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה לִי נֵס בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה״. וּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּפַקְתָּא דַעֲרָבוֹת וּצְחָא לְמַיָּא. אִתְעֲבִיד לֵיהּ נִיסָּא, אִיבְּרִי לֵיהּ עֵינָא דְמַיָּא, וְאִישְׁתִּי. וְתוּ, זִמְנָא חֲדָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּרַסְתְּקָא דְמָחוֹזָא וּנְפַל עֲלֵיהּ גַּמְלָא פְּרִיצָא. אִיתְפָּרַקָא לֵיהּ אָשִׁיתָא, עָל לְגַוַּהּ. כִּי מְטָא לַעֲרָבוֹת בָּרֵיךְ: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁעָשָׂה לִי נֵס בַּעֲרָבוֹת וּבְגָמָל״. כִּי מְטָא לְרַסְתְּקָא דְמָחוֹזָא בָּרֵיךְ: ״בָּרוּךְ … שֶׁעָשָׂה לִי נֵס בְּגָמָל וּבַעֲרָבוֹת״! אָמְרִי: אַנִּיסָּא דְרַבִּים — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיחַיְּיבִי לְבָרוֹכֵי, אַנִּיסָּא דְיָחִיד — אִיהוּ חַיָּיב לְבָרוֹכֵי. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָרוֹאֶה מַעְבְּרוֹת הַיָּם, וּמַעְבְּרוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן, מַעְבְּרוֹת נַחֲלֵי אַרְנוֹן, אַבְנֵי אֶלְגָּבִישׁ בְּמוֹרַד בֵּית חוֹרוֹן, וְאֶבֶן שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ לִזְרוֹק עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶבֶן שֶׁיָּשַׁב עָלֶיהָ מֹשֶׁה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָשָׂה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִלְחָמָה בַּעֲמָלֵק, וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט, וְחוֹמַת יְרִיחוֹ שֶׁנִּבְלְעָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ — עַל כּוּלָּן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּתֵּן הוֹדָאָה וָשֶׁבַח לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. בִּשְׁלָמָא מַעְבְּרוֹת הַיָּם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם בַּיַּבָּשָׁה״. מַעְבְּרוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעַמְדוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֹשְׂאֵי הָאָרוֹן בְּרִית ה׳ בֶּחָרָבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַיַּרְדֵּן הָכֵן וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹבְרִים בֶּחָרָבָה עַד אֲשֶׁר תַּמּוּ כׇּל הַגּוֹי לַעֲבוֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן״. אֶלָּא מַעְבְּרוֹת נַחֲלֵי אַרְנוֹן מְנָלַן? — דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל כֵּן יֵאָמַר בְּסֵפֶר מִלְחֲמֹת ה׳ אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה וְגוֹ׳״. תָּנָא: ״אֶת וָהֵב בְּסוּפָה״ — שְׁנֵי מְצוֹרָעִים הָיוּ, דַּהֲווֹ מְהַלְּכִין בְּסוֹף מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל. כִּי הֲווֹ קָא חָלְפִי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲתוֹ אֱמוֹרָאֵי
This mishna, which includes all of this chapter’s mishnayot, contains a series of blessings and halakhot that are not recited at specific times, but rather in response to various experiences and events.
MISHNA: One who sees a place where miracles occurred on Israel’s behalf recites: Blessed…Who performed miracles for our forefathers in this place. One who sees a place from which idolatry was eradicated recites: Blessed…Who eradicated idolatry from our land. One who sees conspicuous natural occurrences recites a blessing. For zikin and zeva’ot, which the Gemara will discuss below, for thunder, gale force winds, and lightning, manifestations of the power of the Creator, one recites: Blessed…Whose strength and power fill the world. For extraordinary (Rambam) mountains, hills, seas, rivers, and deserts, one recites: Blessed…Author of creation. Consistent with his opinion that a separate blessing should be instituted for each individual species, Rabbi Yehuda says: One who sees the great sea recites a special blessing: Blessed…Who made the great sea. As with all blessings of this type, one only recites it when he sees the sea intermittently, not on a regular basis. For rain and other good tidings, one recites the special blessing: Blessed…Who is good and Who does good. Even for bad tidings, one recites a special blessing: Blessed…the true Judge. Similarly, when one built a new house or purchased new vessels, he recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The mishna articulates a general principle: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. In other words, one recites the appropriate blessing for the trouble that he is experiencing at present despite the fact that it may conceal some positive element in the future. Similarly, one must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad. The mishna states: And one who cries out over the past in an attempt to change that which has already occurred, it is a vain prayer. For example, one whose wife was pregnant and he says: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer. Or one who was walking on the path home and he heard the sound of a scream in the city, and he says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer. In both cases, the event already occurred. The Sages also said: One who enters a large city, the Gemara explains below that this is in a case where entering the city is dangerous, recites two prayers: One upon his entrance, that he may enter in peace, and one upon his exit, that he may leave in peace. Ben Azzai says: He recites four prayers, two upon his entrance and two upon his exit. In addition to praying that he may enter and depart in peace, he gives thanks for the past and cries out in prayer for the future. The mishna articulates a general principle: One is obligated to recite a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he recites a blessing for the good that befalls him, as it is stated: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). The mishna explains this verse as follows: “With all your heart” means with your two inclinations, with your good inclination and your evil inclination, both of which must be subjugated to the love of God. “With all your soul” means even if God takes your soul. “And with all your might” means with all your money, as money is referred to in the Bible as might. Alternatively, it may be explained that “with all your might” means with every measure that He metes out to you; whether it is good or troublesome, thank Him. The mishna teaches several Temple-related halakhot. One may not act irreverently or conduct himself flippantly opposite the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, which is aligned opposite the Holy of Holies. In deference to the Temple, one may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his shoes, his money belt [punda], or even the dust on his feet. One may not make the Temple a shortcut to pass through it, and through an a fortiori inference, all the more so one may not spit on the Temple Mount. The mishna relates: At the conclusion of all blessings recited in the Temple, those reciting the blessing would say: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, until everlasting [haolam], the world. But when the Sadducees strayed and declared that there is but one world and there is no World-to-Come, the Sages instituted that at the conclusion of the blessing one recites: From everlasting [haolam] to everlasting [haolam]. The Sages also instituted that one should greet another in the name of God, i.e., one should mention God’s name in his greeting, as it is stated: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, The Lord is with you, and they said to him, May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it says: “And the angel of God appeared to him and said to him, God is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). And it says: “And despise not your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22), i.e., one must not neglect customs which he inherits. And lest you say that mentioning God’s name is prohibited, it says: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” (Psalms 119:126), i.e., it is occasionally necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to perform God’s will, and greeting another is certainly God’s will. Rabbi Natan says another interpretation of the verse: “Make void Your Torah” because “it is the time to work for the Lord,” i.e., occasionally it is necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to bolster the Torah. GEMARA: With regard to the obligation to recite a blessing for a miracle, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states: “And Jethro said: Blessed be the Lord, Who delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh; Who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians” (Exodus 18:10); a blessing is recited for a miracle. The Gemara asks: For a miracle that occurs for the multitudes we recite a blessing, but for a miracle that befalls an individual person we do not recite a blessing? Wasn’t there an incident where a certain man was walking along the right side of the Euphrates River when a lion attacked him, a miracle was performed for him, and he was rescued? He came before Rava, who said to him: Every time that you arrive there, to the site of the miracle, recite the blessing, “Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me in this place.” And once when Mar, son of Ravina, was walking in a valley of willows and was thirsty for water, a miracle was performed for him and a spring of water was created for him, and he drank. Furthermore, once when Mar, son of Ravina, was walking in the marketplace [risteka] of Meḥoza and a wild camel [gamla peritza] attacked him. The wall cracked open, he went inside it, and he was rescued. Ever since, when he came to the willows he recited: Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me in the willows and with the camel. And, when he came to the marketplace of Meḥoza he recited: Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me with the camel and in the willows, indicating that one recites a blessing even for a miracle that occurs to an individual. The Sages say: On a miracle performed on behalf of the multitudes, everyone is obligated to recite a blessing; on a miracle performed on behalf of an individual, only the individual is obligated to recite a blessing. The Sages taught in a baraita a list of places where one is required to recite a blessing due to miracles that were performed there: One who sees the crossings of the Red Sea, where Israel crossed; and the crossings of the Jordan; and the crossings of the streams of Arnon; the hailstones of Elgavish on the descent of Beit Ḥoron; the rock that Og, King of Bashan, sought to hurl upon Israel; and the rock upon which Moses sat when Joshua waged war against Amalek; and Lot’s wife; and the wall of Jericho that was swallowed up in its place. On all of these miracles one must give thanks and offer praise before God. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, the miracles at the crossings of the sea are recorded explicitly in the Torah, as it is stated: “And the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground and the water was a wall for them on their right and on their left” (Exodus 14:22). So too, the miracle at the crossings of the Jordan, as it is stated: “The priests who bore the ark of God’s covenant stood on dry land within the Jordan, while all Israel crossed on dry land until the entire nation finished crossing the Jordan” (Joshua 3:17). However, from where do we derive the miracle that occurred at the crossing of the streams of Arnon? As it is stated: “Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord: Vahev in Sufa, and the valleys of Arnon. And the slope of the valleys that incline toward the seat of Ar, and lean upon the border of Moab” (Numbers 21:14–15). It was taught: “Vahev in Sufa”; there were two lepers, one named Et and the second named Hev, who were walking at the rear of the camp of Israel. As Israel passed, the Emorites came
MISHNA: One who sees a place where miracles occurred on Israel’s behalf recites: Blessed…Who performed miracles for our forefathers in this place. One who sees a place from which idolatry was eradicated recites: Blessed…Who eradicated idolatry from our land. One who sees conspicuous natural occurrences recites a blessing. For zikin and zeva’ot, which the Gemara will discuss below, for thunder, gale force winds, and lightning, manifestations of the power of the Creator, one recites: Blessed…Whose strength and power fill the world. For extraordinary (Rambam) mountains, hills, seas, rivers, and deserts, one recites: Blessed…Author of creation. Consistent with his opinion that a separate blessing should be instituted for each individual species, Rabbi Yehuda says: One who sees the great sea recites a special blessing: Blessed…Who made the great sea. As with all blessings of this type, one only recites it when he sees the sea intermittently, not on a regular basis. For rain and other good tidings, one recites the special blessing: Blessed…Who is good and Who does good. Even for bad tidings, one recites a special blessing: Blessed…the true Judge. Similarly, when one built a new house or purchased new vessels, he recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The mishna articulates a general principle: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. In other words, one recites the appropriate blessing for the trouble that he is experiencing at present despite the fact that it may conceal some positive element in the future. Similarly, one must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad. The mishna states: And one who cries out over the past in an attempt to change that which has already occurred, it is a vain prayer. For example, one whose wife was pregnant and he says: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer. Or one who was walking on the path home and he heard the sound of a scream in the city, and he says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer. In both cases, the event already occurred. The Sages also said: One who enters a large city, the Gemara explains below that this is in a case where entering the city is dangerous, recites two prayers: One upon his entrance, that he may enter in peace, and one upon his exit, that he may leave in peace. Ben Azzai says: He recites four prayers, two upon his entrance and two upon his exit. In addition to praying that he may enter and depart in peace, he gives thanks for the past and cries out in prayer for the future. The mishna articulates a general principle: One is obligated to recite a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he recites a blessing for the good that befalls him, as it is stated: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). The mishna explains this verse as follows: “With all your heart” means with your two inclinations, with your good inclination and your evil inclination, both of which must be subjugated to the love of God. “With all your soul” means even if God takes your soul. “And with all your might” means with all your money, as money is referred to in the Bible as might. Alternatively, it may be explained that “with all your might” means with every measure that He metes out to you; whether it is good or troublesome, thank Him. The mishna teaches several Temple-related halakhot. One may not act irreverently or conduct himself flippantly opposite the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, which is aligned opposite the Holy of Holies. In deference to the Temple, one may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff, his shoes, his money belt [punda], or even the dust on his feet. One may not make the Temple a shortcut to pass through it, and through an a fortiori inference, all the more so one may not spit on the Temple Mount. The mishna relates: At the conclusion of all blessings recited in the Temple, those reciting the blessing would say: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, until everlasting [haolam], the world. But when the Sadducees strayed and declared that there is but one world and there is no World-to-Come, the Sages instituted that at the conclusion of the blessing one recites: From everlasting [haolam] to everlasting [haolam]. The Sages also instituted that one should greet another in the name of God, i.e., one should mention God’s name in his greeting, as it is stated: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, The Lord is with you, and they said to him, May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it says: “And the angel of God appeared to him and said to him, God is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). And it says: “And despise not your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22), i.e., one must not neglect customs which he inherits. And lest you say that mentioning God’s name is prohibited, it says: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” (Psalms 119:126), i.e., it is occasionally necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to perform God’s will, and greeting another is certainly God’s will. Rabbi Natan says another interpretation of the verse: “Make void Your Torah” because “it is the time to work for the Lord,” i.e., occasionally it is necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to bolster the Torah. GEMARA: With regard to the obligation to recite a blessing for a miracle, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states: “And Jethro said: Blessed be the Lord, Who delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh; Who delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians” (Exodus 18:10); a blessing is recited for a miracle. The Gemara asks: For a miracle that occurs for the multitudes we recite a blessing, but for a miracle that befalls an individual person we do not recite a blessing? Wasn’t there an incident where a certain man was walking along the right side of the Euphrates River when a lion attacked him, a miracle was performed for him, and he was rescued? He came before Rava, who said to him: Every time that you arrive there, to the site of the miracle, recite the blessing, “Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me in this place.” And once when Mar, son of Ravina, was walking in a valley of willows and was thirsty for water, a miracle was performed for him and a spring of water was created for him, and he drank. Furthermore, once when Mar, son of Ravina, was walking in the marketplace [risteka] of Meḥoza and a wild camel [gamla peritza] attacked him. The wall cracked open, he went inside it, and he was rescued. Ever since, when he came to the willows he recited: Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me in the willows and with the camel. And, when he came to the marketplace of Meḥoza he recited: Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me with the camel and in the willows, indicating that one recites a blessing even for a miracle that occurs to an individual. The Sages say: On a miracle performed on behalf of the multitudes, everyone is obligated to recite a blessing; on a miracle performed on behalf of an individual, only the individual is obligated to recite a blessing. The Sages taught in a baraita a list of places where one is required to recite a blessing due to miracles that were performed there: One who sees the crossings of the Red Sea, where Israel crossed; and the crossings of the Jordan; and the crossings of the streams of Arnon; the hailstones of Elgavish on the descent of Beit Ḥoron; the rock that Og, King of Bashan, sought to hurl upon Israel; and the rock upon which Moses sat when Joshua waged war against Amalek; and Lot’s wife; and the wall of Jericho that was swallowed up in its place. On all of these miracles one must give thanks and offer praise before God. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, the miracles at the crossings of the sea are recorded explicitly in the Torah, as it is stated: “And the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground and the water was a wall for them on their right and on their left” (Exodus 14:22). So too, the miracle at the crossings of the Jordan, as it is stated: “The priests who bore the ark of God’s covenant stood on dry land within the Jordan, while all Israel crossed on dry land until the entire nation finished crossing the Jordan” (Joshua 3:17). However, from where do we derive the miracle that occurred at the crossing of the streams of Arnon? As it is stated: “Wherefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord: Vahev in Sufa, and the valleys of Arnon. And the slope of the valleys that incline toward the seat of Ar, and lean upon the border of Moab” (Numbers 21:14–15). It was taught: “Vahev in Sufa”; there were two lepers, one named Et and the second named Hev, who were walking at the rear of the camp of Israel. As Israel passed, the Emorites came
(א) בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לַֽיהוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם לֹ֣א תִתְגֹּֽדְד֗וּ וְלֹֽא־תָשִׂ֧ימוּ קָרְחָ֛ה בֵּ֥ין עֵינֵיכֶ֖ם לָמֵֽת׃
(1) You are children of the LORD your God. You shall not gash yourselves or shave the front of your heads because of the dead.
עכן מאי טעמא איענוש משום דהוו ידעי ביה אשתו ובניו (יהושע ז, יא) חטא ישראל אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא אע"פ שחטא ישראל הוא אמר ר' אבא היינו דאמרי אינשי אסא דקאי ביני חילפי אסא שמיה ואסא קרו ליה (יהושע ז, יא) וגם עברו את בריתי אשר צויתי אותם גם לקחו מן החרם גם גנבו גם כחשו גם שמו בכליהם אמר ר' אילעא משום ר' יהודה בר מספרתא מלמד שעבר עכן על חמשה חומשי תורה שנאמר חמשה גם ואמר רבי אילעא משום רבי יהודה בר מספרתא עכן מושך בערלתו היה כתיב הכא וגם עברו את בריתי וכתיב התם (בראשית יז, יד) את בריתי הפר פשיטא מהו דתימא במצוה גופיה לא פקר קמ"ל (יהושע ז, טו) וכי עשה נבלה בישראל א"ר אבא בר זבדא מלמד שבעל עכן נערה המאורסה כתיב הכא וכי עשה נבלה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כא) כי עשתה נבלה בישראל פשיטא מהו דתימא כולי האי לא פקר נפשיה קמ"ל רבינא אמר דיניה כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה אמר ליה ריש גלותא לרב הונא כתיב (יהושע ז, כד) ויקח יהושע את עכן בן זרח ואת הכסף ואת האדרת ואת לשון הזהב ואת בניו ואת בנותיו ואת שורו ואת חמורו ואת צאנו ואת אהלו ואת כל אשר לו אם הוא חטא בניו ובנותיו מה חטאו אמר ליה וליטעמיך אם הוא חטא כל ישראל מה חטאו דכתיב (יהושע ז, כד) וכל ישראל עמו אלא לרדותן ה"נ כדי לרדותן (יהושע ז, כה) וישרפו אותם באש ויסקלו אותם באבנים בתרתי אמר רבינא הראוי לשריפה לשריפה הראוי לסקילה לסקילה (יהושע ז, כא) וארא בשלל אדרת שנער אחת טובה ומאתים שקלים כסף רב אמר איצטלא דמילתא ושמואל אמר סרבלא דצריפא (יהושע ז, כג) ויציקום לפני ה' אמר רב נחמן בא וחבטם לפני המקום אמר לפניו רבש"ע על אלו תיהרג רובה של סנהדרין דכתיב (יהושע ז, ה) ויכו מהם אנשי העי כשלשים וששה איש ותניא שלשים וששה ממש דברי ר' יהודה אמר לו ר' נחמיה וכי שלשים וששה היו והלא לא נאמר אלא כשלשים וששה איש אלא זה יאיר בן מנשה ששקול כנגד רובה של סנהדרין אמר רב נחמן אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי יח, כג) תחנונים ידבר רש ועשיר יענה עזות תחנונים ידבר רש זה משה ועשיר יענה עזות זה יהושע מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב ויציקום לפני ה' ואמר רב נחמן בא וחבטן לפני המקום אטו פנחס לא עביד הכי (דכתיב) (תהלים קו, ל) ויעמד פנחס ויפלל ותעצר המגפה ואמר ר' אלעזר ויתפלל לא נאמר אלא ויפלל מלמד שעשה פלילות עם קונו בא וחבטן לפני המקום אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם על אלו יפלו עשרים וארבעה אלף מישראל דכתיב (במדבר כה, ט) ויהיו המתים במגפה ארבעה ועשרים אלף ואלא מהכא (יהושע ז, ז) למה העברת העביר את העם הזה את הירדן משה נמי מימר אמר (שמות ה, כב) למה הרעתה לעם הזה אלא מהכא (יהושע ז, ז) ולו הואלנו ונשב בעבר הירדן (יהושע ז, י) ויאמר ה' אל יהושע קום לך דריש ר' שילא א"ל הקב"ה שלך קשה משלהם אני אמרתי (דברים כז, ד) והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו ואתם ריחקתם ס' מיל בתר דנפק אוקים רב אמורא עליה ודרש (יהושע יא, טו) כאשר צוה ה' את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה' את משה א"כ מה ת"ל קום לך א"ל אתה גרמת להם והיינו דקאמר ליה בעי (יהושע ח, ב) ועשית לעי ולמלכה כאשר עשית ליריחו ולמלכה וגו' (יהושע ה, יג) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא וגו' ויאמר לא כי אני שר צבא ה' עתה באתי [ויפול יהושע אל פניו ארצה וישתחו] היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן אסור לו לאדם שיתן שלום לחבירו בלילה חיישינן שמא שד הוא שאני התם דקאמר ליה (יהושע ה, יד) אני שר צבא ה' עתה באתי וגו' ודילמא משקרי גמירי דלא מפקי שם שמים לבטלה
what is the reason that in the case of Achan they were punished? The Gemara answers: Achan’s offense was not a hidden matter because his wife and children knew about it, and they did not protest. § When God explained to Joshua the reason for the Jewish people’s defeat at the city of Ai, He said: “Israel has sinned” (Joshua 7:11). Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says: From here it may be inferred that even when the Jewish people have sinned, they are still called “Israel.” Rabbi Abba says: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Even when a myrtle is found among thorns, its name is myrtle and people call it myrtle. The verse in Joshua continues: “They have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and they have also taken of the dedicated property, and also stolen, and also dissembled, and also put it among their own goods.” Rabbi Ile’a says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Masparta: This teaches that Achan also transgressed all five books of the Torah, as the word “also” is stated here five times. And Rabbi Ile’a says further in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Masparta: Achan, in addition to his other evil actions, would stretch his remaining foreskin in order to conceal the fact that he was circumcised. An allusion to this offense is found in the wording of this verse. Here, with regard to Achan, it is written: “They have also transgressed My covenant,” and there, with regard to circumcision, it is written: “He has violated My covenant” (Genesis 17:14). The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he concealed his circumcision, as Rabbi Ile’a said that he transgressed all five books of the Torah? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that while Achan transgressed all five books of the Torah, with regard to a mitzva relating to his own body, such as circumcision, he did not act irreverently, Rabbi Ile’a teaches us that he sinned concerning this mitzva as well. With regard to Achan, the verse states: “And because he has committed a wanton deed in Israel” (Joshua 7:15). Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says: This teaches that Achan engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman. This offense is also alluded to by the wording of the verse. Here, with regard to Achan, it is written: “And because he has committed a wanton deed,” and there, with regard to a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, it is written: “Because she has committed a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house” (Deuteronomy 22:21). The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as Achan transgressed the entire Torah? The Gemara similarly answers: Lest you say that he did not act irreverently to such an extent, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda teaches us that he paid no heed even to this prohibition. Ravina said: This verbal analogy does not teach what Achan’s offense was; rather, it teaches that his punishment was like that of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, for which she is executed by stoning. § The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: It is written: “And Joshua took Achan, son of Zerah, and the silver, and the mantle, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had, and all Israel with him…and all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones” (Joshua 7:24–25). If Achan sinned, so that he was liable to be stoned, did his sons and daughters also sin, that they too should be stoned? Rav Huna said to the Exilarch: And according to your reasoning that Achan’s family was also punished, if Achan sinned, did all of Israel sin? As it is written: “And all Israel with him.” Rather, Joshua took all of the people to the Valley of Achor not to stone them, but to chastise them and strike fear into their hearts by making them witness the stoning. So too, he took Achan’s household there in order to chastise them. With regard to Achan’s punishment, the verse states: “And they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones.” The Gemara asks: Did they punish him with two punishments? Ravina says: That which was fit for burning, e.g., an item of clothing, was taken out for burning, and that which was fit for stoning, e.g., an animal, was taken out for stoning. § In his confession, Achan states: “And I saw among the spoil a fine mantle of Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver” (Joshua 7:21). Rav says: A mantle of Shinar is a cloak [itztela] of choice wool [demeilta], and Shmuel says: It is a garment [sarbela] dyed with alum. With regard to the spoils that Achan took for himself, the verse states: “And they laid them out before the Lord” (Joshua 7:23). Rav Naḥman says: Joshua came and cast down the spoils before God. Joshua said to Him: Master of the Universe, was it because of these small items that the majority of the Sanhedrin were killed? As it is written: “And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty-six men” (Joshua 7:5), and it is taught in a baraita: Thirty-six men, literally, were killed; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda: But were they precisely thirty-six men? Didn’t it state only: “About thirty-six men”? Rather, this is a reference to Yair, son of Manasseh, who was killed, and who was himself equivalent in importance to the majority of the Sanhedrin, i.e., thirty-six men. Rav Naḥman says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The poor man speaks entreaties, but the rich man answers with impudence” (Proverbs 18:23)? “The poor man speaks entreaties”; this is a reference to Moses, who addressed God in a tone of supplication and appeasement. “But the rich man answers with impudence”; this is a reference to Joshua, who spoke to God in a belligerent manner. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Joshua is considered to have answered God with impudence? If we say that it is because it is written: “And he laid them out before the Lord,” and Rav Naḥman says that this means that Joshua came and cast the spoils down before God as part of his argument, this is difficult: Is that to say that Pinehas did not act the same way in the incident involving Zimri and Cozbi? As it is written: “Then stood up Pinehas, and executed judgment [vayefallel], and the plague was stayed” (Psalms 106:30), and Rabbi Elazar says: And he prayed [vayitpallel], is not stated; rather, “and he executed judgment [vayefallel]” is stated, which teaches that he entered into a judgment together with his Creator. How so? He came and cast Zimri and Cozbi down before God, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, was it because of these sinners that twenty-four thousand members of the Jewish people fell? As it is written: “And those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9). Rather, Joshua’s belligerence is seen from this verse: “Why have You brought this people over the Jordan” (Joshua 7:7), as if he were complaining about God’s treatment of Israel. This too is difficult, as Moses also said a similar statement: “Why have You dealt ill with this people? Why is it that You have sent me?” (Exodus 5:22). Rather, Joshua’s belligerence is seen from here, from the continuation of the previously cited verse in Joshua: “Would that we had been content and had remained in the Transjordan” (Joshua 7:7). § With regard to the verse that states: “And the Lord said to Joshua: Get you up; why do you lie this way on your face?” (Joshua 7:10), Rabbi Sheila taught in a public lecture: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: Your own sin is even worse than that of the other Jews who sinned, as I said to the Jewish people: “And it shall be when you have gone over the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones” (Deuteronomy 27:4), and you have already distanced yourselves sixty mil from the Jordan River, and you have yet to fulfill the mitzva. After Rav Sheila finished his lecture and went out, Rav, who had been present but remained silent, placed an interpreter alongside him, who would repeat his lecture in a loud voice so that the public could hear it, and he taught: The verse states: “As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). This indicates that Joshua could not have been guilty of a grave offense such as delaying in setting up the stones. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Get you up,” hinting that Joshua was in fact responsible for some transgression? The matter should be understood as follows: God said to Joshua: You caused the Jewish people to sin, as had you not dedicated all the spoils of Jericho to the Tabernacle treasury, the entire incident of Achan taking the spoils improperly would not have occurred. And this is what God said to him at Ai: “And you shall do to Ai and her king as you did to Jericho and her king; only its spoil and its cattle shall you take for a prey to yourselves” (Joshua 8:2), instructing Joshua that the Jewish people should keep the spoils. The verse states: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, a man stood over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: And Joshua went to him and said to him, Are you for us or for our adversaries? And he said: No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord; I have now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (Joshua 5:13–14). The Gemara asks: How could Joshua do so, bowing down to a stranger at night? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: It is prohibited for a person to greet another whom he does not recognize at night, as we are concerned that perhaps the one he doesn’t recognize is a demon? Why was Joshua not concerned about this possibility? The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the stranger said to Joshua: “I am captain of the host of the Lord; I have now come.” The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was in fact a demon and he was lying? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that demons do not utter the name of Heaven in vain, and since this figure mentioned the name of Heaven, he must have been speaking the truth.
(א) הָאִשָׁה שֶׁהִרְשַׁת אֶת בַּעִלָהּ אַחַר הַנִּשּׂוּאִין שֶׁיִּמְנַע עוֹנָתָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁכְּבָר קִיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה אֲבָל לֹא קִיֵּם חַיָּב לִבְעל בְּכָל עוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית א כב) "פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ":
(ב) הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. וְאֵימָתַי הָאִישׁ נִתְחַיֵּב בְּמִצְוָה זוֹ מִבֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר וּמְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְאִם הָיָה עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה וְטָרוּד בָּהּ וְהָיָה מִתְיָרֵא מִלִּשָּׂא אִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְרַח בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בַּעֲבוּר אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיִבָּטֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהִתְאַחֵר. שֶׁהָעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּצְוָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה:
(ג) מִי שֶׁחָשְׁקָה נַפְשׁוֹ בַּתּוֹרָה תָּמִיד וְשׁוֹגֶה בָּהּ כְּבֶן עֲזַאי וְדָבֵק בָּהּ כָּל יָמָיו וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה אֵין בְּיָדוֹ עָוֹן. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה יִצְרוֹ מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה יִצְרוֹ מִתְגַּבֵּר עָלָיו חַיָּב לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר:
(ד) כַּמָּה בָּנִים יִהְיוּ לְאִישׁ וְתִתְקַיֵּם מִצְוָה זוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ה ב) "זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם". הָיָה הַבֵּן סָרִיס אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבַּת אַיְלוֹנִית לֹא קִיֵּם מִצְוָה זוֹ:
(ה) נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ וּמֵתוּ וְהִנִּיחוּ בָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה קִיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה. בְּנֵי בָּנִים הֲרֵי הֵם כְּבָנִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי הַבָּנִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה וְהָיוּ בָּאִים מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַזָּכָר בֶּן בִּתּוֹ וְהַנְּקֵבָה בַּת בְּנוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהֵם מִשְּׁנֵי בָּנָיו הֵן בָּאִים הֲרֵי קִיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ בֵּן וּבַת וּמֵתוּ וְהִנִּיחַ אֶחָד מֵהֶן זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה עֲדַיִן לֹא קִיֵּם הַמִּצְוָה:
(ו) הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים בְּגֵיוּתוֹ וְנִתְגַּיֵּר הוּא וְהֵם הֲרֵי זֶה קִיֵּם מִצְוָה זוֹ. הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים וְהוּא עֶבֶד וְנִשְׁתַּחְרֵר הוּא וְהֵם לֹא קִיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרֵר שֶׁהָעֶבֶד אֵין לוֹ יִחוּס:
(ז) לֹא יִשָּׂא אָדָם עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה וְאַיְלוֹנִית וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֵילֵד אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קִיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת לִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהֲתָה עִמּוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה הֲרֵי זֶה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה אוֹ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לֵילֵד. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לְהוֹצִיא כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ בְּשׁוֹט עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא. וְאִם אָמַר אֵינִי בּוֹעֲלָהּ וַהֲרֵינִי שׁוֹכֵן עִמָּהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁאָמְרָה הִיא בֵּין שֶׁאָמַר הוּא אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין אֶלָּא יוֹצִיא אוֹ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לֵילֵד:
(ח) שָׁהֲתָה עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. חֶזְקַת הַחלִי מִמֶּנָּה וְתֵצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתֻבָּה וְיֵשׁ לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת. לֹא תִּהְיֶה זוֹ פְּחוּתָה מֵאַיְלוֹנִית שֶׁלֹּא הִכִּיר בָּהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ תּוֹסֶפֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ חֶזְקַת הַחלִי מִמֶּנּוּ בִּלְבַד וְיוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן הַכְּתֻבָּה כֻּלָּהּ עִקָּר וְתוֹסֶפֶת:
(ט) הוּא אוֹמֵר מִמֶּנָּה נִמְנָע הוֹלָדָה וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מִמֶּנּוּ נִמְנָע מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֶנֶת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת בּוֹ בְּוַדַּאי וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וְאִם אָמְרָה אֵינִי יוֹדַעַת אִם מִמֶּנִּי אִם מִמֶּנּוּ אֵין לָהּ עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ הַעֲמֵד מָמוֹן בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעָלָיו עַד שֶׁתִּטְעֹן בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ. וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמֶנֶת הִיא בְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מַרְגֶּשֶׁת אִם יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ אִם לֹא יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ:
(י) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה לִתְבֹּעַ מִבַּעְלָהּ לְגָרְשָׁהּ אַחַר עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ שׁוֹמְעִין לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצֻוָּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה צְרִיכָה הִיא לְבָנִים לְזִקְנוּתָהּ. וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן עִקַּר כְּתֻבָּה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לָהּ הַתּוֹסֶפֶת עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּצֵא לִרְצוֹנָהּ וְתִטּל:
(יא) הָלַךְ בִּסְחוֹרָה בְּתוֹךְ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַבַּעַל חוֹלֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הִיא חוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ חֲבוּשִׁין בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין אֵין עוֹלֶה לָהֶן אוֹתוֹ זְמַן מִן הַמִּנְיָן:
(יב) הִפִּילָה מוֹנָה מִיּוֹם שֶׁהִפִּילָה. אִם הִפִּילָה וְחָזְרָה וְהִפִּילָה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֻחְזְקָה לִנְפָלִים וְשֶׁמָּא לֹא זָכָה לְהִבָּנוֹת מִמֶּנָּה וְיוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
(יג) הוּא אוֹמֵר הִפִּילָה בְּתוֹךְ עֶשֶׂר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה עִמָּהּ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא הִפַּלְתִּי נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּעֲקָרוּת. הוּא אוֹמֵר הִפִּילָה שְׁנַיִם וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת הִפַּלְתִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה נֶאֱמֶנֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַחְזֶקֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּמַפֶּלֶת וְיוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכָל זֶה מַשְׁבִּיעָהּ שְׁבוּעַת הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא הִפִּילָה אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבְּטַעֲנָה זוֹ יִתְחַיֵּב לִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
(יד) נִשֵּׂאת לָרִאשׁוֹן וְשָׁהֲתָה עִמּוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה וְהוֹצִיאָהּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְשֵׁנִי. שָׁהֲתָה עִם הַשֵּׁנִי עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לִשְׁלִישִׁי. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לִשְׁלִישִׁי תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתֻבָּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אוֹ שֶׁקִּיֵּם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה:
(טו) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּאָה לְבֵית דִּין וְאָמְרָה בַּעְלִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְשַׁמֵּשׁ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הָאָרֶץ שִׁמּוּשׁ שֶׁמּוֹלִיד אוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹרֶה כְּחֵץ יַעֲשׂוּ הַדַּיָּנִין פְּשָׁרָה וְאוֹמְרִים לָהּ רָאוּי לִיךְ שֶׁתִּנְהֲגִי עִם בַּעְלֵךְ עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁהִי עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא תּוֹלִידִי וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּתְבְּעִי. וּמְגַלְגְּלִין עִמָּהּ בְּדָבָר זֶה וְאֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לֵישֵׁב וְלֹא דָּנִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדִין הַמּוֹרֶדֶת אֶלָּא מַאֲרִיכִין בְּדָבָר זֶה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְּשָׁרָה:
(טז) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּיֵּם אָדָם מִצְוַת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה הֲרֵי הוּא מְצֻוֶּה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּטֵל מִלִּפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כֹּחַ. שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹסִיף נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּאִלּוּ בָּנָה עוֹלָם. וְכֵן מִצְוַת חֲכָמִים הִיא שֶׁלֹּא יֵשֵׁב אָדָם בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי הִרְהוּר. וְלֹא תֵּשֵׁב אִשָּׁה בְּלֹא אִישׁ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּחָשֵׁד:
(יז) וְחוֹבָה עַל כָּל אִישׁ לְקַנְּאוֹת לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין אָדָם מְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְנְסָה בּוֹ רוּחַ טָהֳרָה. וְלֹא יְקַנֵּא לָהּ בְּיוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וְלֹא יֶאֱנֹס אוֹתָהּ וְיִבְעל בְּעַל כָּרְחָהּ אֶלָּא בְּדַעְתָּהּ וּמִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְשִׂמְחָה:
(יח) וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה צְנוּעָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ. וְלֹא תַּרְבֶּה שְׂחוֹק וְקַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּפְנֵי בַּעְלָהּ. וְלֹא תִּתְבַּע תַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה בְּפִיהָ. וְלֹא תִּהְיֶה מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּעֵסֶק זֶה. וְלֹא תִּמְנַע מִבַּעְלָהּ כְּדֵי לְצַעֲרוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹסִיף בְּאַהֲבָתָהּ אֶלָּא נִשְׁמַעַת לוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וְתִזָּהֵר מִקְּרוֹבָיו וּבְנֵי בֵּיתוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲבֹר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה. וְתִתְרַחֵק מִן הַכִּעוּר וּמִן הַדּוֹמֶה לְכִעוּר:
(יט) וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם מְכַבֵּד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפוֹ וְאוֹהֲבָהּ כְּגוּפוֹ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מָמוֹן מַרְבֶּה בְּטוֹבָתָהּ כְּפִי מָמוֹנוֹ. וְלֹא יַטִּיל עָלֶיהָ אֵימָה יְתֵרָה. וְיִהְיֶה דִּבּוּרוֹ עִמָּהּ בְּנַחַת. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָצֵב וְלֹא רַגְזָן:
(כ) וְכֵן צִוּוּ עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה מְכַבֶּדֶת אֶת בַּעְלָהּ בְּיוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וְיִהְיֶה עָלֶיהָ מוֹרָא מִמֶּנּוּ וְתַעֲשֶׂה כָּל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ עַל פִּיו. וְיִהְיֶה בְּעֵינֶיהָ כְּמוֹ שַׂר אוֹ מֶלֶךְ. מְהַלֶּכֶת בְּתַאֲוַת לִבּוֹ וּמַרְחֶקֶת כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂנָא. וְזֶה דֶּרֶךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּדוֹשִׁים וְהַטְּהוֹרִים בְּזִוּוּגָן. וּבִדְרָכִים אֵלּוּ יִהְיֶה יִשּׁוּבָן נָאֶה וּמְשֻׁבָּח:
(2) Men are obligated in procreation (periyya u-reviyya), but not women. When is a man obligated in this mitzva? From the age of seventeen. Once he reaches [the age of] twenty years and has not married, he has transgressed and neglected a positive commandment. However, if he is involved in Torah and engrossed in it, and he fears that if he marries, he will have to busy himself with supporting a wife and thereby come to neglect Torah study, then it is permissible for him to delay [marriage]; for one who is involved in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva – all the more so regarding Torah study.
(3) One who is in love with Torah and studies it and cleaves into it always, as Ben Azzai did, commits no sin thereby. That is, providing his sexual desire does not get the better of him. If it does, he is required to marry even if he already has children, in order that he not come to thoughts of sin.
(19) Thus the Sages commanded: A man should honor his wife more than himself and love her as himself. If his money abounds, according to what he can afford. He should not inspire excess fear in her, and he should speak gently with her, and be neither depressed nor hot-tempered.
(20) Thus the Sages commanded: A woman should honor her husband too much, and have awe of him, do all of her actions according to his word. He should seem to her like a minister or king, walking in the desires of his heart, and distancing herself from what he hates. This is how holy and pure Jews behave in their marriages. These paths should be their pleasant and praiseworthy lifestyle.
(ב) עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת מֵאָדָם וְעַד נֹחַ, לְהוֹדִיעַ כַּמָּה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לְפָנָיו, שֶׁכָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת הָיוּ מַכְעִיסִין וּבָאִין עַד שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת מֵי הַמַּבּוּל. עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת מִנֹּחַ וְעַד אַבְרָהָם, לְהוֹדִיעַ כַּמָּה אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם לְפָנָיו, שֶׁכָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת הָיוּ מַכְעִיסִין וּבָאִין, עַד שֶׁבָּא אַבְרָהָם וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׂכַר כֻּלָּם:
(2) [There were] ten generations from Adam to Noah, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the flood. [There were] ten generations from Noah to Abraham, in order to make known what long-suffering is His; for all those generations kept on provoking Him, until Abraham, came and received the reward of all of them.
(ה) כִּֽי־יִבְעַ֤ל בָּחוּר֙ בְּתוּלָ֔ה יִבְעָל֖וּךְ בָּנָ֑יִךְ וּמְשׂ֤וֹשׂ חָתָן֙ עַל־כַּלָּ֔ה יָשִׂ֥ישׂ עָלַ֖יִךְ אֱלֹהָֽיִךְ׃
(5) As a youth espouses a maiden, Your sons shall espouse you; And as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, So will your God rejoice over you.
(א) וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם כַּלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה. רַב אוֹמֵר, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר וַיְהִי, דָּבָר חָדָשׁ הוּא. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר וַיְהִי, דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה נִפְסָק לְהַרְבֵּה יָמִים וְחָזַר לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה. זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: בָּאתִי לְגַנִּי אֲחוֹתִי כַּלָּה (שה״ש ה, א). אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, נִתְאַוָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ דִּירָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים. בָּרָא אֶת הָאָדָם וְצִוָּה אוֹתוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: מִכָּל עֵץ הַגַּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל, וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרַע לֹא תֹּאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (בראשית ב, טז-יז). וְעָבַר עַל צִוּוּיוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כָּךְ הָיִיתִי מִתַּאֲוֶה שֶׁיְּהֵא לִי דִּירָה בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים, וְדָבָר אֶחָד צִוִּיתִי אוֹתְךָ וְלֹא שָׁמַרְתָּ אוֹתוֹ. מִיַּד סִלֵּק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁכִינָתוֹ לָרָקִיעַ הָרִאשׁוֹן. מִנַּיִן, דִּכְתִיב: וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל ה' אֱלֹהִים מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגַּן (שם ג, ח). כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עַל הַצִּוּוּי, סִלֵּק שְׁכִינָתוֹ לָרָקִיעַ הָרִאשׁוֹן. עָמַד קַיִן וְהָרַג לְהֶבֶל, מִיַּד סִלֵּק שְׁכִינָתוֹ לְרָקִיעַ שֵׁנִי כוּ'. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שִׁבְעָה רְקִיעִים בָּרָאתִי, וְעַד עַכְשָׁו יֵשׁ רְשָׁעִים לַעֲמֹד בָּהּ. מֶה עָשָׂה. קִפֵּל אֶת כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָרְשָׁעִים וְהֶעֱמִיד אַבְרָהָם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד אַבְרָהָם, סִגֵּל מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, יָרַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִן רָקִיעַ שְׁבִיעִי לַשִּׁשִּׁי. עָמַד יִצְחָק וּפָשַׁט צַוָּארוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יָרַד מִשִּׁשִׁי לַחֲמִישִׁי כוּ' (שם). עָמַד מֹשֶׁה וְהוֹרִידָהּ לָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֵּרֵד ה' עַל הַר סִינַי (שמות יט, כ). וּכְתִיב: בָּאתִי לְגַנִּי אֲחוֹתִי כַּלָּה (שה״ש ה, א). אֵימָתַי, כְּשֶׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן.
(1) (Numb. 7:1), “So it came to pass on the day that Moses had finished.” Rav says, “Every place where it is stated, ‘So it came to pass (wayehi),’ [is referring to] something new”; but R. Simeon says, “Every place where it says, ‘So it came to pass (wayehi)’ [is referring to] something which existed, has ceased [to exist] for a long time, and has returned to be as it was.90Numb. R. 12:6; PR 5:7. This text is related (to Cant. 5:1), “When I come to my garden, my sister bride.” R. Samuel bar Nahman said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He longed to have an abode below just as He had on high.91Cf. PR 5:5; PRK 1:1; Numb. R. 13:2. Having created Adam, He commanded and said to him (in Gen. 2:16–17), ‘You may freely eat of any tree in the garden; But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you may not eat of it.’ Then he transgressed against his commandment.92Tanh., Exod. 11:6. The Holy One, blessed be He, said this to him, ‘This is what I longed for, that just as I have a dwelling on high, I would likewise have one below. Now when I have given you one command, you have not kept it. Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, removed His Divine Presence [up] to the first firmament. Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Gen. 3:8), “Then they heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden.” [Now when they transgressed His commandment, He had [only] removed His divine presence to the first firmament.] [When] Cain arose and killed Abel, He immediately removed His Divine Presence from the first firmament to the second firmament…. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I created seven firmaments, and up to now there are wicked ones [still] arising upon [the world].’ What did He do? He folded away all the generations of the wicked and raised up our father Abraham. When our father Abraham arose and performed good works, the Holy One, blessed be He, immediately descended from the seventh firmament to the sixth. [When] Isaac arose and stretched out his neck upon the altar, He descended from the sixth firmament to the fifth…. [When] Moses arose, he brought down [the Divine Presence] to earth, as stated (in Exod 19:20), ‘And the Lord came down onto Mount Sinai.’” And [so] it is written (in Cant. 5:1), “When I come to my garden, my sister bride.” When? When the Tabernacle was set up.
(ה) כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִישׁ֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה חֲדָשָׁ֔ה לֹ֤א יֵצֵא֙ בַּצָּבָ֔א וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹ֥ר עָלָ֖יו לְכָל־דָּבָ֑ר נָקִ֞י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵיתוֹ֙ שָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֔ת וְשִׂמַּ֖ח אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָֽח׃ (ס)
(5) When a man has taken a bride, he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to it for any purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has married.
(כח) וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃
(28) When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox is not to be punished.
ולחזקיה למאי הלכתא איתקש דם למים לכדרבי חייא בר אבא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מנין לדם קדשים שאינו מכשיר שנאמר לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים דם שנשפך כמים מכשיר שאינו נשפך כמים אינו מכשיר והרי אבר מן החי דכתיב לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר ותניא רבי נתן אומר מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח תלמוד לומר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל הא לכלבים שרי שאני אבר מן החי דאיתקש לדם דכתיב רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש ולחזקיה למאי הלכתא איתקש אבר מן החי לדם אמר לך דם הוא דאיתקש לאבר מן החי מה אבר מן החי אסור אף דם מן החי אסור ואי זה זה דם הקזה שהנפש יוצאה בו והרי שור הנסקל דרחמנא אמר לא יאכל את בשרו ותניא ממשמע שנאמר סקול יסקל השור איני יודע שהיא נבלה ונבלה אסורה באכילה ומה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר (את) דינו אסור אין לי אלא באכילה בהנאה מנין תלמוד לומר ובעל השור נקי מאי משמע שמעון בן זומא אומר כאדם שאומר לחבירו יצא פלוני נקי מנכסיו ואין לו בהם הנאה של כלום טעמא דכתב ובעל השור נקי דאי מלא יאכל איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע לעולם לא יאכל איסור אכילה ואיסור הנאה משמע ובעל השור נקי להנאת עורו הוא דאתא ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא לא יאכל את בשרו כתיב בשרו אין עורו לא קא משמע לן ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה להאי קרא לדרשה אחרינא לחצי כופר ולדמי וולדות הנאת עורו מנא להו נפקא להו מאת בשרו את הטפל לבשרו ואידך את לא דריש כדתניא שמעון העמסוני ואמרי לה נחמיה העמסוני היה דורש כל אתים שבתורה כיון שהגיע לאת ה׳ אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כל אתים שדרשת מה תהא עליהן אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך אני מקבל שכר על הפרישה עד שבא רבי עקיבא ודרש את ה׳ אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים והרי ערלה דרחמנא אמר ערלים לא יאכל ותניא ערלים לא יאכל אין לי אלא איסור אכילה מנין שלא יהנה ממנו שלא יצבע בו ולא ידליק בו את הנר תלמוד לומר וערלתם ערלתו ערלים לא יאכל לרבות את כולם טעמא דכתב רחמנא וערלתם ערלתו ערלים הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע לעולם לא יאכל משמע בין איסור אכילה בין איסור הנאה ושאני התם דכתיב לכם ואצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתב לכם שלכם יהא קמשמע לן ואלא השתא דכתיבי הנך קראי לכם למה לי לכדתניא לכם לרבות את הנטוע
The Gemara asks: According to Ḥizkiya, who says that: You shall not eat, indicates only that eating is prohibited but that benefit is permitted, for what halakha is blood juxtaposed to water? According to his opinion, there is no need for the verse to teach that one may benefit from blood. The Gemara answers that he needs this verse to derive that which was taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrifices does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? As it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood that is poured out like water, such as that of a slaughtered, non-sacrificial animal, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. However, sacrificial blood, which is not poured out like water and is instead sprinkled on the altar, does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. 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. The Gemara answers: A limb from a living animal is different, as it is juxtaposed in the Torah to blood. 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). Just as it is permitted to benefit from blood, it is likewise permitted to benefit from a limb torn from a living animal. The Gemara asks: And according to Ḥizkiya, in order to teach what halakha is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal juxtaposed to the prohibition against eating blood? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the juxtaposition comes to teach the opposite. It is blood that is juxtaposed to a limb from a living animal to teach the following: Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited, so too, blood of a living being is prohibited. And to which blood is this referring? This is referring to blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, through which the soul departs. That is considered to be blood from a living being, and even the descendants of Noah are prohibited from eating it (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). The Gemara asks: And yet there is the prohibition against eating the meat from an ox that is stoned, as the Merciful One says: “And if an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be surely stoned, and of its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus 21:28). And it was taught in a baraita: By inference from that which is stated: “The ox shall surely be stoned,” in which case it is not to be slaughtered properly, don’t I know that it is an animal carcass, and it is prohibited to eat an animal carcass? What does it mean when the verse states: “Its flesh shall not be eaten”? The verse is telling you that even if one slaughtered the ox after its verdict had been reached but before it had been carried out, it is still prohibited. The baraita continues: I have derived only that one is prohibited from eating this ox; from where do I derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it as well? The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear [naki].” The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that one may not benefit from this ox? Shimon ben Zoma says: This is like a person who says to his fellow: So-and-so was left clear [naki] of his property, and he has no benefit from it at all. Similarly, “But the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he has no benefit from the ox. The Gemara infers from the verse that the reason that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the ox is that the Torah specifically wrote: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear.” As, if this prohibition were derived from: “It shall not be eaten,” apparently the prohibition of eating would be implied, but the prohibition of deriving benefit would not be implied. This presents a challenge even for Ḥizkiya, who agrees that the passive formulation: “It shall not be eaten,” indicates that in addition one may not benefit from the item. The Gemara answers: Actually, the phrase: “It shall not be eaten” indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit. And the phrase: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” comes to prohibit deriving benefit from the hide of the ox that has been stoned. And it is necessary to mention this explicitly, as it could enter your mind to say that since it is written: “Its flesh shall not be eaten,” with regard to its flesh, yes, it is prohibited, but with regard to its hide, no, it is not. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is prohibited to benefit from its hide as well. The Gemara asks: And according to those tanna’im who expound this verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” for another interpretation, namely, to teach that the owner of an innocuous ox, i.e., one that is not known to cause damage with the intent to injure, is exempt from the payment of half of the indemnity if that ox killed a person, or that he is exempt from payment for offspring if his ox gores a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry; from where do they derive this prohibition against benefiting from the ox’s hide? The Gemara answers: They derive this halakha from the wording: “Of [et] its flesh.” The verse could have been formulated: And its flesh shall not be eaten. The addition of the word et comes to include that which is secondary to the flesh, i.e., the hide. The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, who derives the prohibition against benefiting from the hide from the verse: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear,” what does he learn from the additional word et? The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word et as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word et to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. As it was taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God; you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he withdrew from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the etim that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word et in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God”: The word et comes to include Torah scholars, and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et. The Gemara further challenges: And yet there is the prohibition of fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted [orla], as the Merciful One says: “And when you come into the land, and you shall plant all types of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit thereof as prohibited; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23). And it was taught in a baraita: “Shall it be prohibited to you; it shall not be eaten”: I have only derived a prohibition to eat it. From where do I derive that one may not even benefit from it, e.g., that he may not paint with the dye that can be extracted from the fruit, nor may he light a lamp with its oil? The verse states: “You shall count the fruit thereof [orlato] as prohibited [araltem]; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you; it shall not be eaten.” This repetition of the term arel comes to include all forms of benefit. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason that all forms of benefit are prohibited is that the Merciful One writes: “You shall count the fruit thereof as prohibited [araltem]; three years shall it be prohibited [arelim].” The double use of the word arel indicates a two-fold prohibition. However, were that not the case, I would have said: The prohibition of eating is indicated here; however, the prohibition to derive benefit is not indicated. This is a challenge even to Ḥizkiya’s opinion, as the verse says: “It shall not be eaten,” indicating that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well. The Gemara rejects this. Actually, in general, “it shall not be eaten” indicates both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition to derive benefit. However, it is different there, with regard to orla, as it is written: “Three years shall it be prohibited [arelim] to you.” And, therefore, it was necessary for the verse to repeat the prohibition using several terms, as it could enter your mind to say that since it wrote “to you” it means that it shall be yours, namely that one is permitted to benefit from it. Therefore, it teaches us that it is prohibited to derive benefit. The Gemara asks: However, now that these words in the verses are written, indicating the prohibition to derive benefit from orla, why do I need the words “to you,” i.e., what does this phrase teach us here? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: That which is stated: “To you,” comes to include that which is planted
(ד) יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר, יְהִי בֵיתְךָ בֵית וַעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וֶהֱוֵי שׁוֹתֶה בְצָמָא אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם:
(4) Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yohanan [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst.
(ו) פָּתַ֤חְתִּֽי אֲנִי֙ לְדוֹדִ֔י וְדוֹדִ֖י חָמַ֣ק עָבָ֑ר נַפְשִׁי֙ יָֽצְאָ֣ה בְדַבְּר֔וֹ בִּקַּשְׁתִּ֙יהוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א מְצָאתִ֔יהוּ קְרָאתִ֖יו וְלֹ֥א עָנָֽנִי׃
(6) I opened the door for my beloved, But my beloved had turned and gone. I was faint because of what he said. I sought, but found him not; I called, but he did not answer.
(יג) רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, שְׂחוֹק וְקַלּוּת רֹאשׁ, מַרְגִּילִין לְעֶרְוָה. מָסֹרֶת, סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה. מַעַשְׂרוֹת, סְיָג לָעשֶׁר. נְדָרִים, סְיָג לַפְּרִישׁוּת. סְיָג לַחָכְמָה, שְׁתִיקָה:
(13) Rabbi Akiva said:Merriment and frivolity accustom one to sexual licentiousness; Tradition is a fence to the Torah; Tithes a fence to wealth, Vows a fence to abstinence; A fence to wisdom is silence.
(כד) עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃
(24) Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.
כלה כמות שהיא ובית הלל אומרים כלה נאה וחסודה אמרו להן ב"ש לב"ה הרי שהיתה חיגרת או סומא אומרי' לה כלה נאה וחסודה והתורה אמרה (שמות כג, ז) מדבר שקר תרחק אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש לדבריכם מי שלקח מקח רע מן השוק ישבחנו בעיניו או יגננו בעיניו הוי אומר ישבחנו בעיניו מכאן אמרו חכמים לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורבת עם הבריות כי אתא רב דימי אמר הכי משרו קמי כלתא במערבא לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכו רבנן לרבי זירא שרו ליה הכי לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכו רבנן לרבי אמי ולרבי אסי שרו להו הכי כל מן דין וכל מן דין סמוכו לנא לא תסמכו לנא לא מן סרמיסין ולא מן סרמיטין ואמרי לה לא מן חמיסין ולא מן טורמיסין ר' אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר נפקן אמהתא דבי קיסר לאפיה ומשרין ליה הכי רבא דעמיה ומדברנא דאומתיה בוצינא דנהורא בריך מתייך לשלם אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה בר אילעאי שהיה נוטל בד של הדס ומרקד לפני הכלה ואומר כלה נאה וחסודה רב שמואל בר רב יצחק מרקד אתלת א"ר זירא קא מכסיף לן סבא כי נח נפשיה איפסיק עמודא דנורא בין דידיה לכולי עלמא וגמירי דלא אפסיק עמודא דנורא אלא אי לחד בדרא אי לתרי בדרא א"ר זירא אהנייה ליה שוטיתיה לסבא ואמרי לה שטותיה לסבא ואמרי לה שיטתיה לסבא רב אחא מרכיב לה אכתפיה ומרקד אמרי ליה רבנן אנן מהו למיעבד הכי אמר להו אי דמיין עלייכו ככשורא לחיי ואי לא לא א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מותר להסתכל בפני כלה כל שבעה כדי לחבבה על בעלה ולית הלכתא כוותיה ת"ר מעבירין את המת מלפני כלה וזה וזה מלפני מלך ישראל אמרו עליו על אגריפס המלך שעבר מלפני כלה ושבחוהו חכמים שבחוהו מכלל דשפיר עבד והא א"ר אשי אפילו למ"ד נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול דאמר מר (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך פרשת דרכים הואי תנו רבנן מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי שהיה מבטל תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה במה דברים אמורים כשאין עמו כל צרכו אבל יש עמו כל צרכו אין מבטלין וכמה כל צרכו אמר רב שמואל בר איני משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תליסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא ועד סיכרא רב ששת ואיתימא רבי יוחנן אמר נטילתה כנתינתה מה נתינתה בששים רבוא אף נטילתה בששים רבוא וה"מ למאן דקרי ותני
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. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [ḥamisin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin]. The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor’s house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace. With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation. Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man. Rav Aḥa would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride. § 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. 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. 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. 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.
(ו) עֲטֶ֣רֶת זְ֭קֵנִים בְּנֵ֣י בָנִ֑ים וְתִפְאֶ֖רֶת בָּנִ֣ים אֲבוֹתָֽם׃
(6) Grandchildren are the crown of their elders, And the glory of children is their parents.
(ה) אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁמְעוּ לִי, שֶׁאֵין אָדָם שׁוֹמֵעַ לִי וּמַפְסִיד. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין אַתְּ מוֹצֵא יֵשׁ שׁוֹמֵעַ [לאשתו ומפסיד, ויש שומע] לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר, כֵּיצַד אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שָׁמַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִפְסִיד, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, יז): וּלְאָדָם אָמַר כִּי שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁאָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ אַל תִּטְעַם דָּבָר עַד שֶׁאָבוֹא מִן הַמֶּרְחָץ, אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ טְעַם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹא יְהֵא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ אוֹ מֶלַח אוֹ מוּרְיָס, בָּא הַמֶּלֶךְ וּמְצָאוֹ מְטַעֵם בְּשִׂפְתוֹתָיו, אָמַר לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אַל תֹּאכַל וְאָכָלְתָּ. אָמַר לוֹ, מָרִי, שִׁפְחָתְךָ נָתְנָה לִי. אָמַר לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ וּלְשִׁפְחָתִי שָׁמַעְתָּ יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְאָדָם (בראשית ב, יז): וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ, מֶה עָשְׂתָה חַוָּה, הֶאֱכִילָה אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין לֹא בִקְשָׁה אֶלָּא לִבְכּוֹת וּלְיַלֵּל עָלָיו בְּקוֹלָהּ, וְאָכַל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁכָּךְ כְּתִיב לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, לְדִבְרֵי אִשְׁתְּךָ אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (בראשית ג, יא): הֲמִן הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לְבִלְתִּי אֲכָל מִמֶּנּוּ אָכָלְתָּ. אָמַר לוֹ מָרִי, הֲרֵי שִׁפְחָתְךָ נָתְנָה לִי, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, יב): וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי הִוא נָתְנָה לִי מִן הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵל. אָמַר לוֹ וּלְחַוָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ יוֹתֵר מִמֶּנִּי, מִיָּד נִטְרַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, כד): וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן עֵדֶן אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁמַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִפְסִיד. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁשָּׁמַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִשְׂתַּכֵּר, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית טז, ב): וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם הִנֵּה נָא עֲצָרַנִי ה' מִלֶּדֶת בֹּא נָא אֶל שִׁפְחָתִי אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּהּ וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם לְקוֹל שָׂרָי. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְמִי שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ בֵּן, רָאָה אוֹתוֹ אַסְטְרוֹלוֹגוֹס אֶחָד, אָמַר, זֶה הַנַּעַר עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת אַרְכִי לִסְטִים, צָרִיךְ הוּא לְאָבִיו לְהַשְּׁלִיכוֹ, שָׁמַע אָבִיו אָמַר לִבְנִי אֲנִי מַשְּׁלִיךְ, שָׁמַע אָבִיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ אַסְטְרוֹלוֹגוֹס אָמַר כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַר לָכֶם בְּנִי שִׁמְעוּ לוֹ. כָּךְ רָאֲתָה שָׂרָה לְיִשְׁמָעֵאל יוֹצֵא לְתַרְבּוּת רָעָה וְהָיְתָה אוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ לְאַבְרָהָם (בראשית כא, י): גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת בְּנָהּ, וְהֵרַע לוֹ, נִגְלָה עָלָיו הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָמַר לוֹ (בראשית כא, יב): אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עַל הַנַּעַר וְעַל אֲמָתֶךָ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָהּ וגו', שָׁמַע בְּקוֹלָהּ וְנִשְׂתַּכֵּר, שֶׁנִּקְרָא זַרְעוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁל יִצְחָק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כא, יב): כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּמַה אִם מִי שֶׁשָּׁמַע לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כָּךְ עָשָׂה שָׂכָר, מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵעַ לִי עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. וּשְׁלֹמֹה הַמֶּלֶךְ בָּא וּמְפָרֵשׁ (משלי א, לג): וְשֹׁמֵעַ לִי יִשְׁכָּן בֶּטַח וְשַׁאֲנַן מִפַּחַד רָעָה.
(יט) כֵּ֗ן אָ֭רְחוֹת כָּל־בֹּ֣צֵֽעַ בָּ֑צַע אֶת־נֶ֖פֶשׁ בְּעָלָ֣יו יִקָּֽח׃ (פ)
(19) Such is the fate of all who pursue unjust gain; It takes the life of its possessor.
מדאמר בכל מקום ש"מ אסיפא קאי ולקולא ש"מ: ולא משומרי פירות כו': רב זבין שבישתא מאריסא א"ל אביי והא תנן ולא משומרי פירות עצים ופירות א"ל ה"מ בשומר דלית ליה בגופא דארעא מידי אבל אריס דאית ליה בגוויה אימא מדנפשיה קא מזבין ת"ר שומרי פירות לוקחין מהן כשהן יושבין ומוכרין והסלין לפניהם וטורטני לפניהם וכולן שאמרו הטמן אסור לוקחין מהן מפתח הגינה אבל לא מאחורי הגינה איתמר גזלן מאימת מותר לקנות הימנו רב אמר עד שתהא רוב משלו ושמואל אמר אפילו מיעוט שלו אורי ליה רב יהודה לאדא דיילא כדברי האומר אפילו מיעוט שלו ממון מסור רב הונא ורב יהודה חד אמר מותר לאבדו ביד וח"א אסור לאבדו ביד מ"ד מותר לאבדו ביד לא יהא ממונו חמור מגופו ומ"ד אסור לאבדו דלמא הוה ליה זרעא מעליא וכתיב (איוב כז, יז) יכין רשע וצדיק ילבש: רב חסדא הוה ליה ההוא אריסא דהוה תקיל ויהיב תקיל ושקיל סלקיה קרא אנפשיה (משלי יג, כב) וצפון לצדיק חיל חוטא (איוב כז, ח) כי מה תקות חנף כי יבצע כי ישל אלוה נפשו רב הונא ורב חסדא חד אמר נפשו דנגזל וח"א נפשו של גזלן מ"ד נפשו של נגזל דכתיב (משלי א, יט) כן ארחות כל בוצע בצע את נפש בעליו יקח מ"ד נפשו של גזלן דכתיב (משלי כב, כב) אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער כי ה' יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש ואידך נמי הכתיב נפש בעליו יקח מאי בעליו בעליו דהשתא ואידך נמי הכתיב וקבע את קובעיהם נפש מה טעם קאמר מה טעם וקבע את קובעיהם משום דקבעי נפש א"ר יוחנן כל הגוזל את חבירו שוה פרוטה כאילו נוטל נשמתו ממנו שנאמר כן ארחות כל בוצע בצע את נפש בעליו יקח ואומר (ירמיהו ה, יז) ואכל קצירך ולחמך בניך ובנותיך ואומר (יואל ד, יט) מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקי בארצם ואומר (שמואל ב כא, א) אל שאול ואל בית הדמים על אשר המית את הגבעונים מאי ואומר וכ"ת נפש דידיה אבל נפש בניו ובנותיו לא ת"ש בשר בניו ובנותיו וכ"ת הני מילי היכא דלא יהיב דמי אבל היכא דיהיב דמי לא ת"ש מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקי (בארצכם) [בארצם] וכ"ת ה"מ היכא דקעביד בידים אבל גרמא לא ת"ש אל שאול ואל בית הדמים [על] אשר המית את הגבעונים וכי היכן מצינו שהרג שאול את הגבעונים אלא מתוך שהרג נוב עיר הכהנים שהיו מספיקין להן מים ומזון מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הרגן: אבל לוקחין מן הנשים: ת"ר לוקחין מן הנשים כלי צמר ביהודה וכלי פשתן בגליל אבל לא יינות ושמנים וסלתות ולא מן העבדים ולא מן התינוקות אבא שאול אומר מוכרת אשה בארבעה וחמשה דינר כדי לעשות כפה לראשה וכולן שאמרו להטמין אסור גבאי צדקה לוקחין מהן דבר מועט אבל לא דבר מרובה והבדדין לוקחין מהן זיתים במידה ושמן במידה אבל לא זיתים במועט ושמן במועט רשב"ג אומר לוקחין מנשים זיתים במועד בגליל העליון שפעמים אדם בוש למכור על פתח ביתו ונותן לאשתו ומוכרת רבינא איקלע לבי מחוזא אתו נשי דבי מחוזא רמו קמיה כבלי ושירי קביל מינייהו א"ל רבה תוספאה לרבינא והתניא גבאי צדקה מקבלין מהן דבר מועט אבל לא דבר מרובה א"ל הני לבני מחוזא דבר מועט נינהו: מתני׳ מוכין שהכובס מוציא הרי אלו שלו והסורק מוציא הרי אלו של בעה"ב כובס נוטל ג' חוטין והן שלו יתר מכן הרי אלו של בעה"ב אם היה שחור ע"ג הלבן נוטל את הכל והן שלו החייט ששייר את החוט כדי לתפור בו ומטלית שהיא ג' על ג' הרי אלו של בעה"ב מה שהחרש מוציא במעצד הרי אלו שלו ובכשיל של בעל הבית ואם היה עושה אצל בעה"ב אף הנסרים של בעה"ב: גמ׳ ת"ר לוקחין מוכין מן הכובס מפני שהן שלו הכובס נוטל שני חוטין העליונים והן שלו
From the fact that he stated that four or five animals may always be purchased, conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is referring to the latter clause, and his statement is a leniency. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda intended his statement as a leniency. § The mishna teaches: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen. The Gemara relates that Rav purchased grapevine branches from a sharecropper. Abaye said to him: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And similarly, one may not purchase wood and produce from produce watchmen? The same halakha should apply with regard to a sharecropper, who, like a watchman, is not the owner of the produce. Rav said to him: This statement applies only with regard to a watchman, as he has no share at all in the land itself. But with regard to a sharecropper, who does have a share in it, say: He is selling merchandise from his own share of the land. Since it is plausible that the sharecropper is selling his own property, it is permitted to buy it from him. The Gemara cites a baraita which discusses purchasing items from watchmen: The Sages taught (Tosefta 11:8): With regard to produce watchmen, one may purchase produce from them when they are sitting and selling the produce, and the baskets are before them and the scales [veturtanei] are before them, as in these circumstances it is reasonable to assume that they are not selling stolen merchandise. But in all cases where they said to the buyer: Conceal your purchase, it is prohibited to purchase from them, as there is good reason to suspect that the merchandise is stolen. The baraita adds: One may purchase from a watchman from the entrance of the garden, but not from the back of the garden, because if the produce is being sold inconspicuously, there is a concern that it might have been stolen. § Having discussed the halakha pertaining to suspected theft, the Gemara proceeds to examine the halakha pertaining to purchasing items from a known robber. It was stated: With regard to a robber, from when is it permitted to purchase items from him? Rav says: It is prohibited until the majority of his possessions are from his own property, i.e., property that he obtained legally. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to purchase items from a known robber even if only a minority of his possessions are from his own property. The Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda instructed Adda, his attendant, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: It is permitted to purchase items from a known robber even if only a minority of his possessions are from his own property, i.e., in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. With regard to the property of an informer, i.e., one who informs gentiles of the whereabouts of another’s property, facilitating its theft or misuse, there is a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda. One says: It is permitted to physically destroy it, and one says: It is prohibited to physically destroy it. The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that it is permitted to physically destroy it is that an informer’s property should not be subject to a more stringent halakha than his body. Since it is permitted to physically harm or even kill an informer, it would be unreasonable to prohibit the destruction of his property. And the rationale of the one who says that it is prohibited to physically destroy it is that perhaps he will have good children, and it is written: The wicked may prepare it, but the just shall put it on (see Job 27:17). The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda had a certain sharecropper who would weigh the field’s produce and give Rav Ḥisda his portion, and weigh the produce and take his own portion. Rav Ḥisda dismissed him, and read the following verse about him: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s chil-dren; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous” (Proverbs 13:22). § The Gemara examines various verses pertaining to robbers. “For what is the hope of the godless, though he profits, when God takes away his soul?” (Job 27:8). This verse is the subject of a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda. One says that the phrase “God takes away his soul” is referring to the soul of the robbed, and one says that it is referring to the soul of the robber. The Gemara elaborates: The rationale of the one who says that the verse is referring to the soul of the robbed is as it is written: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19), which teaches that one who robs another of his property is considered as one who robbed him of his soul. And the rationale of the one who says that it is referring to the soul of the robber is as it is written: “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 that despoil them” (Proverbs 22:22–23). The Gemara questions each opinion: And according to the other opinion, i.e., the latter one, isn’t it also written: “It takes away the life of the owner thereof,” which indicates that the soul of the robbed is taken? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase “the owner thereof”? It is referring to its current owner, i.e., the robber, who has acquired the stolen item. And according to the other opinion, who said that the life of the robbed is taken, isn’t it also written: “And despoil of life those that despoil them,” which indicates that the soul of the robber is taken? The Gemara answers that the verse is saying: What is the reason. The verse teaches: What is the reason that God will despoil the life of those who despoil them? It is because they despoiled the soul of their victims. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who robs another of an item worth one peruta is considered as though he takes his soul from him, as it is stated: “So are the ways of every one that is greedy for profit; it takes away the life of the owner thereof” (Proverbs 1:19). And it states: “And they shall consume your harvest, and your bread, they shall consume your sons and your daughters” (Jeremiah 5:17). Since they will consume the harvest and bread, it is as though they consume one’s children as well because there will be no food to feed them. And it states: “Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land” (Joel 4:19). The verse here considers extortion like the shedding of innocent blood. And it states with regard to a famine: “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 asks: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan’s point was proven by the first verse, what was the purpose of adding each subsequent verse by saying: And it states? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that the robber takes only his, i.e., the victim’s, life, but the lives of his sons and daughters are not taken, come and hear the second verse, which mentions the flesh of his sons and daughters. And if you would say: This matter applies only where the robber does not give his victim compensation for the stolen item, but where he gave compensation for the stolen item, it is not comparable to murder, come and hear the verse: “For the extortion of the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.” Extortion is referring to coercing someone to sell an item that he does not want to sell. It is a form of robbery, and the verse equates it with murder. And if you would say: This matter applies only where he committed the robbery by direct action, but if he committed it through indirect action, the transgression is not as severe, come and hear the verse: “It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.” And where did we ever find that Saul killed the Gibeonites? He did not do so. Rather, due to the fact that he killed the residents of Nob, the city of the priests, who would provide the Gibeonites with water (see I Samuel, chapter 22) and food, the verse ascribes him blame for their death as though he had killed the Gibeonites himself. § The mishna teaches: But one may purchase specific goods from women in certain places. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:5): One may purchase from women woolen goods in Judea, and linen goods in the Galilee, but not wines, oils, and flours, as these are not usually sold by women and there is a concern that perhaps the women stole them from their husbands. And no items may be purchased from slaves, or from children. Abba Shaul says: A woman may sell items for up to four and five dinars in order to make a cap [kippa] for her head, as it is assumed that her husband allows her to sell these items in order to purchase additional articles of clothing. And with regard to all of those cases, where they told the buyer to conceal his purchase, it is prohibited to enter into the transaction. Charity collectors may take something worth a small amount from women, but not something worth a large amount, as it is possible that they do not have permission to give away expensive items. And with regard to olive pressers, one may purchase from them olives in a substantial measure, and oil in a substantial measure, as there is no concern that they would steal such a large amount, but not olives in a small amount, and not oil in a small amount. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may purchase olives in small amounts from women in the Upper Galilee, where olives are exceptionally expensive, as at times, a person is embarrassed to sell olives at the entrance of his house, and so he gives some olives to his wife, and she sells them. Since there is a reason to presume that the women have been given the right to sell the olives by their husbands, and it is unlikely that the women would sell them without permission, as even a small amount missing would be noticed due to their great value, it may be assumed that the olives are being sold with permission. The Gemara relates: When Ravina arrived at Bei Meḥoza, the women of Bei Meḥoza came and tossed chains and bracelets before him so that he could distribute the jewelry as charity, and he accepted it from them. Rabba Tosfa’a said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught in the baraita: Charity collectors may accept something worth a small amount from women, but not something worth a large amount? How can you accept jewelry, which is worth a significant sum? Ravina said to him: For the residents of Meḥoza, these chains and bracelets are considered something small, and it is therefore permitted for me to accept them. MISHNA: Strands of wool that the launderer removes from the garment belong to him, as it can be assumed that the customer is uninterested in them, but strands that the carder, i.e., one who prepares wool for use as a textile, removes belong to the customer, as it is assumed that the customer would want them, since the carder often removes a significant number of strands. A launderer takes three threads that were inserted at the edge of a garment, and they are his, but with regard to more threads than this, these additional threads belong to the customer. If these were black threads on a white garment, he takes all of them and they are his. As the removal of the threads improves the appearance of the garment, the customer does not want them. In the case of a tailor who left enough thread attached to the cloth that it could be used in order to sew with it, or if there was a patch of cloth that is three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths left from the cloth given to the tailor by the customer, these items belong to the customer. That which a carpenter removes with an adze belongs to him, because an adze removes only small shavings of wood, which the customer is uninterested in; but what he removes with an ax [uvakashil] belongs to the customer. And if he was doing his work in the domain of the customer, then even the sawdust belongs to the customer. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:13): One may purchase strands of wool from a launderer, because they are assumed to be his. A launderer may take the two upper threads of a garment, and they are his.
(ו) בְּכָל־דְּרָכֶ֥יךָ דָעֵ֑הוּ וְ֝ה֗וּא יְיַשֵּׁ֥ר אֹֽרְחֹתֶֽיךָ׃
(6) In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths smooth.
(י) אִם־אַחֶ֖רֶת יִֽקַּֽח־ל֑וֹ שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע׃
(10) If he marries another, he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר שארה כסותה לפום שארה תן כסותה שלא יתן לה לא של ילדה לזקינה ולא של זקינה לילדה כסותה ועונתה לפום עונתה תן כסותה שלא יתן חדשים בימות החמה ולא שחקים בימות הגשמים: תני רב יוסף שארה זו קרוב בשר שלא ינהג בה מנהג פרסיים שמשמשין מטותיהן בלבושיהן מסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונא האומר אי אפשי אלא אני בבגדי והיא בבגדה יוציא ונותן כתובה: רבי יהודה אומר אפילו עני שבישראל וכו': מכלל דת"ק סבר הני לא היכי דמי אי דאורחה מ"ט דת"ק דאמר לא ואי דלאו אורחה מ"ט דר"י לא צריכא כגון דאורחיה דידיה ולאו אורחה דידה ת"ק סבר כי אמרינן עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו הני מילי מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה לא ורבי יהודה סבר אפילו לאחר מיתה אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא הלכה כרבי יהודה ואמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא מי שנשתטה בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו ובניו ובנותיו ודבר אחר א"ל רבינא לרב אשי מ"ש מהא דתניא מי שהלך למדינת הים ואשתו תובעת מזונות בית דין יורדין לנכסיו וזנין ומפרנסין את אשתו אבל לא בניו ובנותיו ולא דבר אחר א"ל ולא שאני לך בין יוצא לדעת ליוצא שלא לדעת מאי דבר אחר רב חסדא אמר זה תכשיט רב יוסף אמר צדקה מ"ד תכשיט כ"ש צדקה מ"ד צדקה אבל תכשיט יהבינן לה דלא ניחא ליה דתינוול אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא מי שהלך למדינת הים ומתה אשתו ב"ד יורדין לנכסיו וקוברין אותה לפי כבודו לפי כבודו ולא לפי כבודה אימא אף לפי כבודו הא קמ"ל עולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו ואפילו לאחר מיתה אמר רב מתנה האומר אם מתה לא תקברוה מנכסיו שומעין לו מ"ש כי אמר דנפלי נכסי קמי יתמי כי לא אמר נמי נכסי קמי יתמי רמו אלא האומר אם מת הוא לא תקברוהו מנכסיו אין שומעין לו לאו כל הימנו שיעשיר את בניו ויפיל עצמו על הציבור: מתני׳ לעולם היא ברשות האב עד שתכנס
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that she’era and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she’era], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband’s obligation to provide clothing for his wife. Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: “She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife’s funeral. The Gemara infers: This proves by inference that the first, anonymous tanna cited in the mishna holds that these are not part of a husband’s obligations. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is the common custom in her family at funerals, what is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna who said that he does not have to do so? If he neglected to provide these items he would be treating her with disrespect. And if this is not the common custom in her family, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state their dispute in a case where it is the common custom for his family according to its social status, but it is not common for her family according to its social status. The first tanna holds: When we say that a woman who marries a man ascends with him, i.e., she must be treated as equal in status to her husband if his social status is higher than hers, and does not descend with him if he is from a lower social status, this applies only when they are alive, but after death the Sages did not enforce this rule. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Even after death she must be treated in accordance with his status, which means that if those in his family are mourned with flutes and lamenting women, he must provide the same for her funeral. Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Apropos this ruling, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: With regard to one who became insane, the court enters his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, his sons, and his daughters, and it also gives something else, as will be explained. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife claims sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters and does not give something else. If a father is not obligated to sustain his children in his absence, what is different about a situation where he is mad? Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is there no difference for you between a man who leaves his responsibilities knowingly and one who leaves them unknowingly? A father who lost his sanity did not do so by his own choice, and therefore it can be assumed that he would want to provide for his children from his possessions, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. By contrast, if he went overseas he freely decided to depart, and one would think that he would leave enough for his sons and daughters. If he failed to do so, he has demonstrated that he does not want to provide for them. The Gemara asks: What is this something else mentioned in the baraita? Rav Ḥisda said: This is a wife’s ornaments, to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. Rav Yosef said: It is money for charity. The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that the court does not pay for a woman’s ornaments from her husband’s property if he has gone overseas, all the more so he maintains that the husband’s property is not taken for charity. Conversely, the one who says that the court does not give money for charity holds that this applies only to charity, but it does give her ornaments, as it is assumed that it is not satisfactory for him that his wife be demeaned by a lack of jewelry. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court enters his property and buries her in accordance with his dignity. The Gemara asks: Does the court act in accordance with his dignity and not in accordance with her dignity? What if she came from a more dignified family than her husband? The Gemara answers: Say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin meant: Even in accordance with his dignity, i.e., if his family was more distinguished than hers, he must bury her in accordance with the dignity of his family. The Gemara adds: This comes to teach us that she ascends with him to his social status and does not descend with him, and this principle applies even after her death, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna. Rav Mattana said: In the case of one who says that if his wife dies, they should not bury her using funds from his property, the court listens to him. The Gemara asks: What is different about the case when he says this command that induces the court to comply with his wishes? It is due to the fact that the property has come before the orphans as an inheritance, while the obligation to bury her is not incumbent upon them but is a duty of the inheritors of her marriage contract. However, even if he did not state the above preference, the property is cast before the orphans and it belongs to them. What does it matter whether or not the husband issued a command to this effect? Rather, the Gemara amends Rav Mattana’s statement: With regard to one who says that if he himself dies, they should not bury him using funds from his property, one does not listen to him, but the court spends his money without resorting to charity. The reason for this is that it is not in his power to enrich his sons by saving them this expense and to cast himself as a burden on the community. MISHNA: Even after she is betrothed, a daughter is always under her father’s authority until she enters
(י) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֡ם לְכוּ֩ אִכְל֨וּ מַשְׁמַנִּ֜ים וּשְׁת֣וּ מַֽמְתַקִּ֗ים וְשִׁלְח֤וּ מָנוֹת֙ לְאֵ֣ין נָכ֣וֹן ל֔וֹ כִּֽי־קָד֥וֹשׁ הַיּ֖וֹם לַאֲדֹנֵ֑ינוּ וְאַל־תֵּ֣עָצֵ֔בוּ כִּֽי־חֶדְוַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה הִ֥יא מָֽעֻזְּכֶֽם׃
(10) He further said to them, “Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the LORD is the source of your strength.”
(י) מִ֤י חָכָם֙ וְיָ֣בֵֽן אֵ֔לֶּה נָב֖וֹן וְיֵֽדָעֵ֑ם כִּֽי־יְשָׁרִ֞ים דַּרְכֵ֣י יְהוָ֗ה וְצַדִּקִים֙ יֵ֣לְכוּ בָ֔ם וּפֹשְׁעִ֖ים יִכָּ֥שְׁלוּ בָֽם׃
(10) He who is wise will consider these words, He who is prudent will take note of them. For the paths of the LORD are smooth; The righteous can walk on them, While sinners stumble on them.
והמלוה סלע לעני בשעת דחקו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נח, ט) אז תקרא וה' יענה תשוע ויאמר הנני: סי' אש"ה וקרק"ע עז"ר זא"ת שת"י הברכו"ת תגר"י פחת"י: א"ר אלעזר כל אדם שאין לו אשה אינו אדם שנאמר (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראם ויקרא את שמם אדם ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שאין לו קרקע אינו אדם שנא' (תהלים קטו, טז) השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם ואמר רבי אלעזר מאי דכתיב (בראשית ב, יח) אעשה לו עזר כנגדו זכה עוזרתו לא זכה כנגדו ואיכא דאמרי ר' אלעזר רמי כתיב כנגדו וקרינן כניגדו זכה כנגדו לא זכה מנגדתו אשכחיה רבי יוסי לאליהו א"ל כתיב אעשה לו עזר במה אשה עוזרתו לאדם א"ל אדם מביא חיטין חיטין כוסס פשתן פשתן לובש לא נמצאת מאירה עיניו ומעמידתו על רגליו וא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (בראשית ב, כג) זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי ובשר מבשרי מלמד שבא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שבא על חוה ואמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב (בראשית יב, ג) ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה אמר ליה הקב"ה לאברהם שתי ברכות טובות יש לי להבריך בך רות המואביה ונעמה העמונית כל משפחות האדמה אפילו משפחות הדרות באדמה אין מתברכות אלא בשביל ישראל (בראשית יח, יח) כל גויי הארץ אפילו ספינות הבאות מגליא לאספמיא אינן מתברכות אלא בשביל ישראל ואמר רבי אלעזר עתידים כל בעלי אומניות שיעמדו על הקרקע שנאמר (יחזקאל כז, כט) וירדו מאניותיהם כל תופשי משוט מלחים כל חובלי הים על הארץ יעמדו ואמר ר' אלעזר אין לך אומנות פחותה מן הקרקע שנאמר וירדו רבי אלעזר חזיא לההיא ארעא דשדי ביה כרבא לפותיא א"ל אי תשדייה לאורכיך הפוכי בעיסקא טב מינך רב על לביני שיבלי חזנהו דקא נייפן אמר להו אי נייפת איתנופי הפוכי בעיסקא טב מינך אמר רבא מאה זוזי בעיסקא כל יומא בשרא וחמרא מאה זוזי בארעא מילחא וחפורה ולא עוד אלא מגניא ליה אארעא ומרמיא ליה תיגרי אמר רב פפא זרע ולא תזבין אע"ג דכי הדדי נינהו הני מברכן זבין ולא תיזול הני מילי ביסתרקי אבל גלימא לא מיתרמיא ליה טום ולא תשפיץ שפוץ ולא תיבני שכל העוסק בבנין מתמסכן קפוץ זבין ארעא מתון נסיב איתתא נחית דרגא נסיב איתתא סק דרגא בחר שושבינא א"ר אלעזר בר אבינא אין פורענות באה לעולם אלא בשביל ישראל שנאמר (צפניה ג, ו) הכרתי גוים נשמו פנותם החרבתי חוצותם וכתיב (צפניה ג, ז) אמרתי אך תיראי אותי תקחי מוסר רב הוה מיפטר מרבי חייא אמר ליה רחמנא ליצלך ממידי דקשה ממותא ומי איכא מידי דקשה ממותא נפק דק ואשכח (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה וגו' רב הוה קא מצערא ליה דביתהו כי אמר לה עבידי לי טלופחי עבדא ליה חימצי חימצי עבדא ליה טלופחי כי גדל חייא בריה אפיך לה אמר ליה איעליא לך אמך אמר ליה אנא הוא דקא אפיכנא לה אמר ליה היינו דקא אמרי אינשי דנפיק מינך טעמא מלפך את לא תעביד הכי שנאמר (ירמיהו ט, ד) למדו לשונם דבר שקר העוה וגו' רבי חייא הוה קא מצערא ליה דביתהו כי הוה משכח מידי צייר ליה בסודריה ומייתי ניהלה אמר ליה רב והא קא מצערא ליה למר א"ל דיינו שמגדלות בנינו ומצילות אותנו
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). § 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). 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. 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? And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with each animal and beast in his search for his mate, and his mind was not at ease, in accordance with the verse: “And for Adam, there was not found a helpmate for him” (Genesis 2:20), until he had intercourse with Eve. And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed [nivrekhu]” (Genesis 12:3)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham: I have two good shoots to graft [lehavrikh] onto you: Ruth the Moabite, the ancestress of the house of David, and Naamah the Ammonite, whose marriage with Solomon led to the ensuing dynasty of the kings of Judea. “All the families of the earth” means: Even families that live in the earth, i.e., who have land of their own, are blessed only due to the Jewish people. Similarly, when the verse states: “All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him” (Genesis 18:18), it indicates that even ships that come from Galia to Hispania are blessed only due to the Jewish people. And Rabbi Elazar said: All craftsmen are destined to stand upon and work the land, as it is stated: “And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the sea, shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the land” (Ezekiel 27:29). And Rabbi Elazar said: There is no occupation lowlier than working the land, as it is stated: “And they shall come down,” implying that one who works the land is of lower stature than even a sailor. The Gemara similarly relates: Rabbi Elazar saw land that was plowed across its width. He said to it: Even if they plow you once more lengthwise, for further improvement, conducting business is better than farming with you, as the potential profits gained by selling merchandise are far greater than those from working the land. The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav entered between the sheaves in a field and saw them waving in the wind. He said to them: If you want to wave go ahead and wave, but conducting business is better than farming with you. Rava similarly said: One who has a hundred dinars that are invested in a business is able to eat meat and wine every day, whereas he who has a hundred dinars worth of land eats only salt and vegetables. And what is more, working the land causes him to lie on the ground at night in order to guard it, and it draws quarrels upon him with other people. 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. Rav Pappa further advised: If there is a hole in your house, close it up and do not enlarge it and then plaster it, or at least plaster it and do not knock it down and build it again. As, whoever engages in construction becomes poor. Hurry to buy land so that you do not lose the opportunity. Be patient and marry a woman who is suitable for you. Descend a level to marry a woman of lower social status, and ascend a level to choose a friend [shushevina]. Rabbi Elazar bar Avina said: Calamity befalls the world only due to the sins of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “I have cut off nations, their corners are desolate; I have made their streets waste” (Zephaniah 3:6), and it is written: “I said: Surely you will fear Me, you will receive correction” (Zephaniah 3:7). This indicates that other nations were punished so that the Jewish people would mend their ways. The Gemara cites more statements with regard to wives. When Rav was taking leave of his uncle and teacher, Rabbi Ḥiyya, upon his return from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: May the Merciful One save you from something that is worse than death. Rav was perplexed: Is there anything that is worse than death? He went, examined the sources, and found the following verse: “And I find more bitter than death the woman, etc.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). Rabbi Ḥiyya was hinting at this verse, and indeed, Rav’s wife would constantly aggravate him. When he would say to her: Prepare me lentils, she would prepare him peas; if he asked her for peas, she would prepare him lentils. When Ḥiyya, his son, grew up, he would reverse the requests Rav asked him to convey to her, so that Rav would get what he wanted. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Your mother has improved now that you convey my requests. He said to Rav: It is I who reverse your request to her. Rav said to him: This is an example of the well-known adage that people say: He who comes from you shall teach you wisdom; I should have thought of that idea myself. You, however, should not do so, i.e., reverse my request, as it is stated: “They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they weary themselves to commit iniquity, etc.” (Jeremiah 9:4). If you attribute such a request to me, you will have uttered a falsehood. The Gemara relates a similar story. Rabbi Ḥiyya’s wife would constantly aggravate him. Nevertheless, when he would find something she would appreciate, he would wrap it in his shawl and bring it to her. Rav said to him: Doesn’t she constantly aggravate you? Why do you bring her things? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: It is enough for us that our wives raise our children and save us
(קכו) עֵ֭ת לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת לַיהוָ֑ה הֵ֝פֵ֗רוּ תּוֹרָתֶֽךָ׃
(126) It is a time to act for the LORD, for they have violated Your teaching.