Rabbi E. Tauber- Thoughts for a Jewish Home- Raising Children the Jewish Way

Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be burned is necessary only with regard to the fat around the sciatic nerve, as it is taught in a baraita: The fat around the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden. Since it is permitted by Torah law, it has the status of sacrificial meat and may not be simply discarded. Nevertheless, since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even from the Paschal offering, despite the mitzva to eat that offering in its entirety. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat may be eaten and it is burned as leftover sacrificial meat. Ravina said: The mishna’s statement is necessary only with regard to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve that is next to the bone is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve that is next to the flesh is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. In the case of a Paschal offering, since the outer nerve is permitted by Torah law, it assumes the status of leftover sacrificial meat when it is not eaten. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another resolution to the dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, from a mishna (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve of the right leg and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve of the left leg, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes. Granted, if you say it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is the one forbidden by Torah law, it is well. But if you say he is uncertain, why would he hold that one incurs any lashes? When the individual is forewarned not to partake of each sciatic nerve, which is necessary in order to be liable for incurring lashes, it is an uncertain forewarning, and we have heard about Rabbi Yehuda that he said: An uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning. As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father and he struck this one and then struck that one, or cursed this one and then cursed that one, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable to receive the death penalty, as he certainly struck or cursed his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, provided he was forewarned that his action will certainly render him liable to receive the death penalty. But if he struck or cursed them one after the other he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not punished after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably each forewarning is uncertain. Similarly, if Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain which sciatic nerve is forbidden by Torah law, he should hold that since the forewarning before eating either sciatic nerve is uncertain, one who consumes both should be exempt. The Gemara answers: This tanna of that mishna, on 96a, holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover meat after it has taught a prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged for violation of the prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not flogged for any transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva. Rabbi Ya’akov says: This, the halakha that one is not flogged, is not for that reason. Rather, it is because leaving over sacrificial meat is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. The forewarning one could receive for this transgression is an uncertain one, because witnesses who forewarn the individual cannot be certain until daybreak that he will leave it over. Nevertheless, this baraita indicates that if not for the fact that leaving over sacrificial meat can be rectified by a positive mitzva, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that one is flogged for leaving over sacrificial meat. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the uncertainty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a baraita: If one ate two sciatic nerves from two thighs of two different animals, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the first tanna said that he was referring to two thighs of two different animals, it is obvious that he meant they were both from the right thigh, because if one were from the right thigh and one were from the left thigh it would not matter if they were from two different animals or from the same animal. Consequently, both sciatic nerves are definitely forbidden by Torah law, and according to the first tanna one incurs eighty lashes for eating them. And it was necessary to teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda one incurs only forty lashes, as will be explained. Conclude from this baraita that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that it is the sciatic nerve of the right thigh that is forbidden by Torah law. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. The Gemara seeks to clarify the baraita: But if it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve from the right thigh is prohibited by Torah law, why does he incur forty lashes and nothing more? Let him be flogged eighty times. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the volume of one of the sciatic nerves is not an olive-bulk, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that in such a case one is not flogged for its consumption. As it is taught in a baraita: If one ate the entire sciatic nerve and its volume is not an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable to be flogged, because he ate a complete, natural unit of forbidden food. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it has a volume of at least an olive-bulk. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that only the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden by Torah law? Rava said that it is because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh. And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both the right and left thighs are forbidden by Torah law, explain the definite article as teaching that the prohibition applies to the one whose prohibition spreads through the entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve. This serves to exclude the outer nerve, which is not prohibited by Torah law. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden because the verse states: “And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the spoon of his thigh; and the spoon of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26). The angel grappled with Jacob like a man who hugs another in order to throw him to the ground, and his hand reaches to the spoon of the right thigh of the other. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The angel appeared to him as a gentile, as the Master said: A Jew who is joined by a gentile on the road and continues his travels with him should position the gentile to his right, close to one’s dominant hand. This allows the Jew to defend himself against any potential attack. Since Jacob followed this practice, it was therefore Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched. Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava bar Ulla that the angel appeared to Jacob as a Torah scholar, and therefore Jacob positioned the angel on his right side, as the Master said: One who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus, in that he does not know how to act with good manners. Consequently, it was Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched. And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both thighs are forbidden, understand that the angel came from behind Jacob and hit him on both thighs. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from this phrase: “As he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26)? The Gemara answers: They require it for the other interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This teaches that the dust [avak] from their feet ascended to the throne of glory. It is written here: “As he wrestled [behe’avko] with him,” and it is written there in a description of how God will punish the wicked: “The Lord, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, and the clouds are the dust of His feet” (Nahum 1:3). § The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi concerning the sciatic nerve: And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Why is its name called sciatic nerve [gid hanashe]? It is because the sciatic nerve left [nasha] its place and rose. And similarly the verse says: “The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight, they remain in their strongholds; their might has left [nashata], they are become as women” (Jeremiah 51:30). The Gemara continues with other expositions pertaining to the sciatic nerve. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord sent a word to Jacob, and it has fallen upon Israel” (Isaiah 9:7)? “He sent a word to Jacob”; this is a reference to the sciatic nerve. “And it has fallen upon Israel”; this teaches that its prohibition has been extended to the entire Jewish people. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into the house, and slaughter the animals, and prepare the meat; for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16)? Joseph commanded his steward: Expose the place of the slaughter on the neck of the animal to them so that the brothers will know that it is being slaughtered correctly. “And prepare” teaches that Joseph instructed the steward to remove the sciatic nerve in their presence so that the brothers would know that it had been fully removed. The Gemara comments that this opinion is according to the one who said that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob even before the Torah was given, when they still had the status of descendants of Noah. The Gemara returns to the verse of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The verse states: “And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day” (Genesis 32:25). Rabbi Elazar says: The reason Jacob remained alone was that he remained to collect some small pitchers that had been left behind. From here it is derived that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies. And why do they care so much about their possessions? It is because they do not stretch out their hands to partake of stolen property. The verse states: “And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here it is derived that a Torah scholar should not go out of his house alone at night, as Jacob went out alone at night and was injured. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that the source for this instruction is from here:

Until now, the Gemara has cited statements made by Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of the tanna, Rabbi Yosei. Now, the Gemara begins to cite what Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From the day that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world there was no person who called him “Lord” until Abraham came and called him Lord. As it is stated: “And he said, ‘My Lord, God, by what shall I know that I will inherit it?’” (Genesis 15:8). The Gemara cites another statement extolling that virtue of Abraham is mentioned, as Rav said: Even Daniel’s prayers were only answered on account of Abraham, as it is stated: “And now listen, God, to the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication; and cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Temple, for the sake of the Lord” (Daniel 9:17). The verse should have said: And cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Temple, for Your sake, as Daniel was addressing the Lord. Rather, this verse contains an allusion that the prayer should be accepted for the sake of Abraham, who called You, Lord. Daniel utilized that name of God in order to evoke Abraham’s virtue and enhance his prayer. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From where is it derived that one must not placate a person while the person in the throes of his anger? As it is stated: “My face will go, and I will give you rest” (Exodus 33:14). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From the day the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world, no one thanked the Holy One, Blessed be He, until Leah came and thanked Him, as it is stated: “And she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and she said, ‘This time I will give thanks to God,’ and thus he was called Judah” (Genesis 29:35). Tangential to the mention of Leah’s son, Judah, and the reason for his name, the Gemara explains the sources for other names, including Reuben. Rabbi Elazar said: Reuben’s name should be considered a prophecy by Leah, as Leah said: See [re’u] the difference between my son [beni] and the son of my father-in-law, Esau, son of Isaac. Even though Esau knowingly sold his birthright to his brother Jacob, as it is written: “And he sold his birthright to Jacob” (Genesis 25:33), nonetheless, behold what is written about him: “And Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Esau was not only angry over Isaac’s blessing, but he was angry about another matter as well, as it is written: “And he said, ‘Is he not rightly named Jacob, for he has supplanted me twice? He took my birthright, and behold, now he has taken my blessing’” (Genesis 27:36). Despite having sold his birthright, he refused to relinquish it. While my son, Reuben, even though Joseph took his birthright from him by force, as it is written: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but, since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel” (I Chronicles 5:1). Nevertheless, he was not jealous of him, as it is written when Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him: “And Reuben heard and he saved him from their hands, saying ‘Let us not take his life’” (Genesis 37:21). Continuing on the topic of names, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the name Ruth? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That she had the privilege that David, who inundated the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises, would descend from her. The name Ruth [Rut] is etymologically similar in Hebrew to the word inundate [riva]. Regarding the basic assumption that these homiletic interpretations of names are allusions to one’s future, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the name affects one’s life? Rabbi Eliezer said that the verse says: “Go, see the works of the Lord, who has made desolations [shamot] upon the earth” (Psalms 46:9). Do not read the word as shamot, rather as shemot, names. The names given to people are, therefore, “the works of the Lord upon the earth.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan said other aggadic statements in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The existence of wayward children in a person’s home is more troublesome than the war of Gog and Magog, the ultimate war, the climax of the travails of Messianic times. As it is stated: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1). And it is written thereafter: “Lord, how numerous are my enemies, many have risen against me” (Psalms 3:2). While concerning the war of Gog and Magog, which is alluded to in the second chapter of Psalms, it is written: “Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples speak for naught? The kings of the earth stand up and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed…He that sits in heaven laughs, the Lord mocks them” (Psalms 2:1–4). Yet in this chapter describing the war of Gog and Magog “how numerous are my enemies” is not written, as it is not as difficult as raising a wayward son like Absalom. Regarding the opening phrase of the psalm, which serves as its title, the Gemara wonders: It is said: “A Psalm of David, when fleeing his son, Absalom.” A Psalm of David? It should have said: A lament of David. Rabbi Shimon ben Avishalom said a parable: To what is this similar? It is similar to a person about whom a promissory note was issued stating that he must repay a debt to the lender. Before he repaid it, he was despondent, worried how he will manage to repay the debt. After he repaid it, he was glad. So too was the case with David. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him, through Natan the prophet, after the incident with Bathsheba, “Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your house” (II Samuel 12:11), David was despondent. He said: Perhaps it will be a slave or a mamzer who will rise up in my house, a person of such lowly status, who will have no pity on me. But once David saw that Absalom was the one through whom the prophecy was to be fulfilled, he rejoiced, as he was certain that Absalom would show him mercy. That is why David said a psalm, not a lament, thanking God for punishing him in the least severe manner possible. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world. Though the ways of the wicked prosper, one is still permitted to provoke them and need not fear (Maharsha), as it is stated: “Those who abandon the Torah will praise wickedness, and the keepers of the Torah will fight them” (Proverbs 28:4). That statement was also taught in a baraita, as Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Matun, says: One is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “Those who abandon the Torah will praise wickedness, and the keepers of the Torah will fight them.” And if someone whispered to you, saying, on the contrary, isn’t it also written: “Do not compete with evil-doers, and do not envy the unjust” (Psalms 37:1), meaning that one should avoid provoking the wicked, say to him: Only one whose heart strikes him with pangs of conscience over sins that he committed says this. Rather, the true meaning of the verse is: Do not compete with evil-doers, to be like the evil-doers, and do not envy the unjust to be like the unjust. The Gemara cites proof from another verse. And it says: “One shall not envy the unjust, but be in fear of the Lord all the day” (Proverbs 23:17). In this context, to envy means to seek to emulate the unjust. From these verses in Psalms and Proverbs, it would seem that one is encouraged to provoke the wicked. The Gemara asks: Is this so? Didn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: If you see a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, do not provoke him. As long as he is enjoying good fortune, there is no point in confronting him. As it is stated: “His ways prosper at all times; Your judgments are far beyond him; as for his adversaries, he snorts at them” (Psalms 10:5). The verse teaches us that the ways of the wicked will always succeed. And not only that, but he emerges victorious in judgment, as it is stated: “Your judgments are far beyond him,” meaning that even when he is brought to justice, it does not affect him. And not only that, but he witnesses his enemies’ downfall, as it is stated: “As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them.” To resolve this contradiction with regard to whether or not one may provoke the wicked, the Gemara offers several explanations: This is not difficult, as it can be understood that this, which says that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to his personal matters, while that, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to matters of Heaven. And if you wish, say instead that this, which says not to confront the wicked and that, which says to confront the wicked, are both referring to matters of Heaven, and, nevertheless, it is not difficult. This, which says that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, who is enjoying good fortune. While that, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is not smiling. And if you wish, say instead that this, which says not to confront and that, which says to confront, are both referring to a wicked person upon whom the hour is smiling, but the question of whether one is permitted to confront him depends on who is confronting him. And nevertheless, this is not difficult. This, which says that it is a mitzva to confront them, is referring to a completely righteous person, while this, which says that one may not confront the wicked, is referring to one who is not completely righteous, as Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously and hold Your peace? When the wicked swallows the man more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). This verse is difficult to understand. Do the wicked swallow the righteous? Isn’t it written: “The wicked looks to the righteous and seeks to kill him; the Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor allow him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:32–33), and it is written: “No mischief shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21)? Rather, in light of these verses, the verse: “The wicked swallows the man more righteous than he” means: The man who is more righteous than he, but not completely righteous, he swallows. The completely righteous he does not swallow. And if you wish, say: In general, the wicked cannot swallow the righteous, but when the hour is smiling upon him, it is different. When the wicked are enjoying good fortune, even the righteous can be harmed (Birkat Hashem). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Setting a fixed place for prayer is so important that one who sets a fixed place for his prayer, his enemies fall beneath him, as it is said: “And I will appoint a place for My nation, Israel, and I will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place.” Through setting aside a place for prayer, they will merit to “be disturbed no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them anymore, as in the beginning” (II Samuel 7:10). This verse, cited by the Gemara, leads to an additional point. Rav Huna raised a contradiction: In the book of Samuel, in this verse it is written: “To afflict them,” while in the parallel verse in I Chronicles (17:9) it is written: “To destroy them.” The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The enemies of Israel intend first to afflict them, and, ultimately, to destroy them entirely. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Service of Torah is greater than its study, i.e., serving a Torah scholar and spending time in his company is greater than learning Torah from him. Torah study is one component of a Torah life, but one who serves a Torah scholar learns about every aspect of life from his actions. This is derived from the verse that speaks in praise of Elisha, as it is stated: “Here is Elisha son of Shafat, who poured water over Elijah’s hands” (II Kings 3:11). The verse does not say that he learned from Elijah, rather that he poured water, which teaches that the service of Torah represented by Elisha pouring water over Elijah’s hands is greater than its study. As a prelude to another of the statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, the Gemara relates the following incident. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: Why did the Master not come to the synagogue to pray? Rav Naḥman said to him: I was weak and unable to come. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: Let the Master gather ten individuals, a prayer quorum, at your home and pray. Rav Naḥman said to him: It is difficult for me to impose upon the members of the community to come to my home to pray with me (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). Rabbi Yitzḥak suggested another option: The Master should tell the congregation to send a messenger when the congregation is praying to come and inform the Master so you may pray at the same time. Rav Naḥman saw that Rabbi Yitzḥak was struggling to find a way for him to engage in communal prayer. He asked: What is the reason for all this fuss? Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:

She kicked him and said to him: Isn’t it written as follows: “Ordered in all things and secure” (ii Samuel 23:5), which indicates that if the Torah is ordered in your 248 limbs, i.e., if you exert your entire body in studying it, it will be secure, and if not, it will not be secure. The Gemara relates that it was similarly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer had a student who would study quietly, and after three years he forgot his studies. Incidental to the story cited above involving a student of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites the following episode: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer had a student who was liable for the punishment of death by burning, for his sins against God, but the Rabbis said: Let him alone and do not punish him as he deserves, because he served a great person. The Gemara cites instructions issued by Shmuel that are similar to those of Berurya. Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], open your mouth and read from the Torah, open your mouth and study the Talmud, in order that your studies should endure in you and that you should live a long life, as it is stated: “For they are life to those who find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22). Do not read: “To those who find them [lemotzeihem],” but rather “to those who express them [lemotzi’eihem],” with their mouth. The Gemara cites additional instructions issued by Shmuel: Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, his beloved student: Keen scholar, grab and eat, grab and drink, as the world from which we are departing is like a wedding feast, whose joy is only temporary, and one who does not take pleasure in it now will not be able to do so in the future. Similarly, Rav said to Rav Hamnuna: My son, if you have money, do well for yourself. There is no point waiting, as there is no pleasure in the netherworld, and death does not tarry. And if you say: I will save up in order to leave for my children, who told you the law of the netherworld, i.e., how do you know which of you will die first (Arukh)? People are similar to grass of the field, in that these blossom, i.e., grow, and their actions are blessed, and these wither and die. Having expounded the verse “For they are life to those who find them” as referring to the Torah, the Gemara cites another teaching related to this verse that praises the Torah. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who is walking along the way without a companion and is afraid should engage in Torah study, as it is stated with regard to the words of Torah: “For they shall be a graceful wreath [livyat ḥen] for your head, and chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9). The word livyat is understood here as a reference to levaya, accompaniment, so that the verse is interpreted to mean that Torah is a graceful accompaniment to one who is traveling. One who feels pain in his head should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “For they shall be a graceful wreath for your head.” One who feels pain in his throat should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “And chains about your neck.” One who feels pain in his intestines should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “It shall be health to your navel” (Proverbs 3:8). One who feels pain in his bones should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “And marrow to your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). One who feels pain in his entire body should engage in Torah study, as it is stated: “And health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: 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 gives a drug to his fellow, it is good for this part of his body and it is harmful to that other part of his body. But the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so; He gave the Torah to the Jewish people, and it is a drug of life for one’s entire body, as it is stated: “And health to all their flesh.” The Gemara continues with praise for Torah study and knowledge. Rav Ami said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within you; let them be firmly attached together to your lips” (Proverbs 22:18)? When are words of Torah pleasant? When you keep them within you and know them. And when will you keep them within you? When they will be attached together to your lips, i.e., when you articulate them audibly and expound them. Rabbi Zeira said that this idea is derived from here: “A man has joy in the answer of his mouth; and a word in due season, how good it is” (Proverbs 15:23). When does a man have joy? When an answer related to Torah study is in his mouth. Another version: When does a man have joy in the answer of his mouth? When he experiences the fulfillment of: A word in due season, how good it is, i.e., when he knows when and how to address each issue. Rabbi Yitzḥak said that this idea is derived from here: “But the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it” (Deuteronomy 30:14). When is it very near to you? When it is in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it, i.e., when you articulate your Torah study. Rava said that this idea is actually derived from here: “You have given him his heart’s desire, and have not withheld the request of his lips, Selah” (Psalms 21:3). When have You given him his heart’s desire? When You have not withheld the request of his lips, Selah, i.e., when he converses in words of Torah. Rava raised an internal contradiction in that very verse: In the beginning of the verse it is written: “You have given him his heart’s desire,” implying that it is enough for one to request in his heart, whereas in the end of the verse it is written: “And You have not withheld the request of his lips, Selah,” indicating that one must express his prayers verbally. Rava himself resolved the contradiction: If one is fortunate, “You have given him his heart’s desire,” even if he does not give verbal expression to his wants. But if he is not fortunate, at least “You have not withheld the request of his lips, Selah.” With regard to the end of this verse, a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught the following baraita: Wherever it states netzaḥ, Selah, or va’ed, the matter will never cease. Netzaḥ, as it is written: “For I will not contend forever; neither will I be eternally [lanetzaḥ] angry” (Isaiah 57:16), which demonstrates that netzaḥ bears a similar meaning to forever. Selah, as it is written: “As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God; may God establish it forever, Selah” (Psalms 48:9), which demonstrates that Selah means forever. Va’ed, as it is written: “The Lord shall reign forever and ever [va’ed]” (Exodus 15:18). In light of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites several expositions of verses proposed by Rabbi Eliezer, while first providing them with a mnemonic: Chains, cheeks, tablets, engraved. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9)? If a person makes himself like a chain that hangs loosely on the neck, i.e., if a scholar is not pushy and disruptive to others, and he is also seen but not seen, i.e., just as a chain is covered by clothes and hair, so too, the scholar does not let himself be seen, his Torah study will endure. But if not, if he acts in a rude and arrogant manner, his Torah study will not endure. And Rabbi Eliezer also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “His cheeks are like a bed of spices” (Song of Songs 5:13)? If a person makes himself humble like this garden bed upon which everyone treads, and like this spice with which everyone perfumes himself, i.e., which benefits not only the one who wears it, his Torah study will endure. But if not, his Torah study will not endure. And Rabbi Eliezer further said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Tablets [luḥot] of stone” (Exodus 31:18)? If a person makes his cheeks [leḥayav] like this stone that does not wear away, his Torah study will endure. But if not, i.e., if he is not diligent in his studies, his Torah study will not endure. And, lastly, Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16)? This teaches that had the first tablets, the subject of this verse, not been broken, the Torah would never have been forgotten from the Jewish people, as the Torah would have been engraved upon their hearts. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Had the tablets not been broken, no nation or tongue would ever have ruled over them, as it is stated: “Engraved”; do not read it engraved [ḥarut] but rather freedom [ḥeirut]. Similarly, Rav Mattana said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The well that the princes dug out, that the nobles of the people delved, with the scepter, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah” (Numbers 21:18)? If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, his Torah study will endure and be given to him as a gift [mattana]. And if not, his Torah study will not endure. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef had a grievance against Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, who is usually referred to in the Gemara simply as Rava, and as a result of the grievance the two would never meet. When the eve of Yom Kippur arrived, Rava said: I will go and appease him. He went and found Rav Yosef’s attendant mixing him a cup of wine. He said to the attendant: Give it to me, and I will mix it. He gave it to Rava, and Rava mixed it. Rav Yosef was blind and could not see his visitor, but when he tasted the wine he said: This mixture is similar to the mixture of Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, who would add extra water to the wine. Rava said to him: It is I. Rav Yosef said to him: Do not sit on your knees until you have explained these verses to me: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And from the wilderness to Mattanah; and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth; and from Bamoth to the valley in the field of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looks out toward the desert” (Numbers 21:19–20)? Rava said to him: If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, the Torah will be given to him as a gift [mattana]. And once it is given to him as a gift, he inherits it [neḥalo] and God [El] makes it His inheritance, as it is stated: “And from Mattanah to Nahaliel.” And once God has made it His inheritance, he rises to greatness, as it is stated: “And from Nahaliel to Bamoth,” which means heights. And if he becomes haughty, the Holy One, Blessed be He, lowers him, as it is stated: “And from Bamoth to the valley.” And if he repents, the Holy One, Blessed be He, raises him back up, as it is stated: “Every valley shall be exalted” (Isaiah 40:4). Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Your flock found a dwelling in it; You, O God, prepare of Your goodness for the poor” (Psalms 68:11)? If a person makes himself like an animal that tramples its prey and eats it immediately, without being particular about its food, i.e., if a scholar immediately reviews what he has heard from his teacher; and some say, like an animal that soils and eats, i.e., if a scholar is not particular about maintaining his honor during his Torah study, just as an animal is not particular about the quality of its food, his Torah study will endure. And if not, his Torah study will not endure. And if he does so, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will Himself prepare him a feast, as it is stated: “You, O God, prepare of Your goodness for the poor,” indicating that God in His goodness will Himself prepare a feast for that pauper. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who guards the fig tree shall eat its fruit” (Proverbs 27:18)? Why were matters of Torah compared to a fig tree? Just as this fig tree,

(3) Let fidelity and steadfastness not leave you; Bind them about your throat, Write them on the tablet of your mind,

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said: It is stated with regard to those who returned from Babylonia in the days of Ezra: “The children of the captivity that came out of exile sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve goats for a sin offering; all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35). The Gemara first analyzes this verse: But is it possible for a sin offering to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? Rava said: The verse means that it was all performed in the manner of a burnt offering: Just as a burnt offering may not be eaten, so too, that sin offering was not eaten. As Rabbi Yosei would say: They brought these twelve sin offerings for the sin of idol worship; and Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They were brought for the sin of idol worship they committed in the days of King Zedekiah. The Gemara explains the difficulty concerning which it cited this verse: It might enter our mind to think that according to the one who holds that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he also holds that a communal sin offering whose owners died is left to die. But here, with regard to the offerings brought by the returning exiles, this is a case of a communal sin offering whose owners died, as the sin was committed in the time of Zedekiah, in the First Temple period, whereas the offerings were brought several generations later by those returning to rebuild the Second Temple. And yet they were sacrificed. This proves that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is not left to die. Rav Pappa said in response: Even according to the one who said that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering is left to die, he agrees that a communal sin offering whose owners died is not left to die. This is because a community does not die. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Pappa derive this statement? If we say it is because it is written: “Your sons shall be instead of your fathers” (Psalms 45:17), i.e., it is considered as though the fathers are alive, if so, then this should apply even to an individual as well. In other words, sons should be able to sacrifice the sin offerings of their late fathers. Rather, this is Rav Pappa’s reasoning for his statement that a community does not die. It is derived from the halakha of the goats sacrificed on pilgrimage Festivals and on New Moons, as the Merciful One states: Bring them from the funds of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, where they kept the half-shekels donated every year in the month of Adar, with which communal offerings were purchased. The Gemara explains: But perhaps the owners of these coins that were used to purchase these offerings have died in the meantime between the month of Adar and when the offerings are sacrificed throughout the year. If so, how can a sin offering be brought on behalf of some of its owners who have already died? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this halakha that a community does not die? And if you wish, say instead a different answer in response to the earlier difficulty: The sin offerings for idolatry brought by the returning exiles were not in fact sacrificed for people who had died. Rather, when they sacrificed these sin offerings for the idolatry committed in the time of Zedekiah, they sacrificed them for the living, i.e., for those survivors who had worshipped idols in the time of Zedekiah and were still alive many decades later and had returned to rebuild the Second Temple. As it is written: “But many of the priests, Levites, and heads of fathers’ houses, the old men that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes; and many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12). The Gemara objects: But perhaps those who remained and remembered the First Temple were the minority, in which case they should have each brought individual sin offerings, rather than a communal sin offering. The fact that they brought communal sacrifices indicates that the sin offering was not brought only on behalf of those few who remained. The Gemara explains: You cannot say that they were the minority, as it is written in the following verse: “So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off” (Ezra 3:13). This verse shows that the people who cried because they remembered the First Temple were not a small minority. The Gemara asks: But how could they sacrifice sin offerings for the sin of idolatry? After all, they were intentional idol worshippers, and a sin offering is brought only by one who sins unwittingly. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in response: It was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances, according to which they were permitted to bring sin offerings even for intentional sins. The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you do not say so, one can object as follows: Granted, they sacrificed twelve bulls and goats, since each tribe must bring a communal sin offering, as stated in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 15), and these offerings correspond to the twelve tribes. But to what do the ninety-six sheep correspond? Rather, it must be that it was a provisional edict. § Earlier the Gemara mentioned the halakha of a sin offering whose owner died, which was one of the halakhot forgotten during the mourning period for Moses (see 16a). On this topic the Gemara says that we learned in a mishna there (Sota 47a): From the time when Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem died, the clusters [eshkolot] ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of eshkolot? It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo], i.e., both Torah and mitzvot. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people, from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died, would study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher. From that point forward they would not study Torah in the manner of Moses, our teacher. The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. This suggests that the Sages who came immediately after Moses did not study Torah in the same manner as Moses. The Gemara answers: Those halakhot that they forgot, were forgotten, but with regard to those halakhot that they studied, they would continue to study in the manner of Moses, our teacher. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the resolution of questions of halakha: From the time when Moses died, if the majority deem an item impure, they have established it as impure, and if the majority deem an item pure, they have established it as pure. If this is the case, then the manner of studying Torah after the death of Moses is based on a majority, whereas when Moses was alive there was no dispute in matters of halakha. The Gemara explains that this baraita is referring specifically to those halakhot that were forgotten during the mourning period after the death of Moses. Since the understanding of the heart was limited [libba de’ime’it], the Sages were unable to reach a clear ruling on these matters. Consequently, they had to follow the majority. But with regard to all other halakhot they studied, they would study them in the manner of Moses, our teacher. It was taught in a baraita: All the clusters who stood at the head of the Jewish people from the days of Moses until Yosef ben Yo’ezer died had no flaw in them. From this point forward the clusters, i.e., the leadership of the Jewish people, had flaws in them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. And they asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it. On the following day, his friends entered to visit him. When they saw the goat tied to the leg of the bed they said: There is an armed bandit in this man’s house, and we are entering to visit him? They referred to the goat in this manner because small animals habitually graze on the vegetation of neighbors, stealing their crops. The Sages sat and examined this pious man’s behavior, and they could not find any transgression attributable to him other than the sin of keeping that goat in his house alone. And that man himself also said at the time of his death: I know for a fact with regard to myself that I have no transgression attributable to me but the sin of keeping that goat in my house alone, as I transgressed the statement of my colleagues, the Sages. As the Sages said in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79b): One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in inhabited areas of Eretz Yisrael, because they graze on people’s crops. And we maintain that anywhere that it says: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the man in question is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages lived many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. If this is the case, then even in later generations there were Sages without a flaw.

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the width of the Sanctuary, from north to south, it works out well. According to this opinion there was enough room on the east and the west of the Table for the two priests arranging the new loaves to stand on one side of the Table and for the two priests removing the old loaves to stand on the other side. But according to the one who said the tables were positioned along the length of the Sanctuary, from east to west, in which case the priests arranging and removing the shewbread would stand at the north and south of the Table, this is difficult. Now, consider how much space was taken up by the tables: How far was the Table removed from the northern wall of the Sanctuary? It was two and a half cubits away from the wall, as this is the space necessary for the two priests to pass. And to this one must add one cubit for the width of the northern row of tables itself, and another two and a half cubits that were between the northern row of five tables and Moses’ Table, as space for two priests to pass is required here as well. The Gemara continues to calculate the area occupied by the tables: And then one must add one cubit for the width of the Table of Moses, and two and a half cubits that were between Moses’ Table and the southern row of tables, and another cubit for the width of the southern row itself. This totals ten and a half cubits, according to which it is found that the Table occupies half a cubit in the south of the Sanctuary, although the Table is supposed to be entirely in the north of the Sanctuary. The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that the Table of Moses resided together with the other ten tables, i.e., parallel to them? It was not so. The Table of Moses was situated to the west of the other tables, in the space corresponding to the space between the two rows of tables, and its width should not be added to the width of the two rows of Solomon’s tables. All the tables were therefore situated in the north of the Sanctuary. Since the Temple was built on terrain that sloped downward from west to east, this means that the Table of Moses was raised above the tables of Solomon. The Table of Moses was placed to the west and the tables of Solomon were lowered slightly toward the east. Solomon’s tables therefore appeared in relation to Moses’ Table as a student who sits on a lower level before his teacher. § The Sages taught in a baraita: Solomon built ten tables that were situated in the Sanctuary, in addition to Moses’ Table, but the priests would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of the Lord, the golden altar, and the Table upon which the shewbread was, of gold” (I Kings 7:48), indicating that the shewbread was placed on only one Table. Likewise, Solomon built ten candelabra, but the priests would kindle the lamps only on the Candelabrum of Moses. This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And they burn unto the Lord every morning and every evening burnt offerings and sweet incense; the shewbread also they arrange in order upon the pure Table, and the Candelabrum of gold with its lamps, to burn every evening” (II Chronicles 13:11). The singular form indicates that the lamps were kindled on only one Candelabrum. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: They would arrange the shewbread upon all the tables, as it is stated: “And Solomon made all the vessels that were in the House of God, the golden altar as well, and the tables upon which was the shewbread” (II Chronicles 4:19). The plural form indicates that the shewbread was arranged on all the tables. And they would kindle the lamps on all the candelabra, as it is stated in the subsequent verse: “And the candelabra with their lamps, which they should burn according to the ordinance before the Sanctuary, of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:20). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: They would arrange the shewbread only upon the Table of Moses. Rather, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And the tables upon which was the shewbread…of pure gold” (II Chronicles 4:19–20)? These are the three tables that were in the Temple, of which there were two that were situated in the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary, on the inside near to the entrance to the Temple, i.e., near the entrance to the Sanctuary. One of these tables was made of silver, and the other one was made of gold. On the table of silver the priest places the new shewbread that has been baked, before its entrance into the Sanctuary, so that the loaves may cool a little from the heat of the oven. And when the old shewbread is removed from the shewbread Table it is placed on the table of gold upon its exit from the Sanctuary, until the frankincense is burned on the altar. The reason the shewbread is placed on a silver table before it is brought into the Sanctuary and on a gold one when it is removed is that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since it is set on the gold shewbread Table all week, it cannot be downgraded to a silver table upon its removal. The Gemara concludes: The third of the three tables is the one Table of gold inside the Sanctuary upon which the shewbread is always found. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And Moses erected the Tabernacle, and he laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and put in its bars, and erected its pillars” (Exodus 40:18). This teaches that once Moses, who was at a greater level of sanctity than the rest of the people, began the work of erecting the Tabernacle, he alone completed it. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to the coal pans of the men of Korah’s assembly, in which they burned incense before they were consumed by a fire: “The coal pans of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made beaten plates for a covering of the altar, for they have become sacred because they were brought before the Lord, that they may be a sign to the children of Israel” (Numbers 17:3). Initially the coal pans had the status of articles used in the service of the altar, as they contained the incense, and now that they have been made into a covering for the altar their status has been elevated to that of the altar itself. § Having mentioned the principle that one does not downgrade in matters of sanctity, the Gemara cites a related issue. The verse states: “At that time the Lord said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first…And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1–2). Rav Yosef teaches a baraita: This verse teaches that both the tablets of the Covenant and the pieces of the broken tablets are placed in the Ark. One should learn from here that with regard to a Torah scholar who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., illness, one may not behave toward him in a degrading manner. Although the first tablets were broken it is prohibited to treat them with disrespect, due to their sanctity. A Torah scholar who forgot the Torah knowledge he once possessed is likened to these broken tablets. The Gemara notes a mnemonic for the following three statements of Reish Lakish, which are all related to the concept stated by Rav Yosef: One who caused dereliction of the study of Torah for the sake of a mitzva, a Torah scholar who sinned, and a Torah scholar who forgot his studies. Reish Lakish says: Sometimes

Rav Yosef said in response: The baraita is not referring to a flaw due to some sin; rather, it is teaching about the flaw of the early dispute over the halakha of placing hands on the head of an animal brought as a Festival peace offering, as taught in tractate Ḥagiga (16a). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But Yosef ben Yo’ezer himself disputed the halakha of placing hands on the head of an offering. The first Sages to dispute this issue were Yosef ben Yo’ezer and Yosef ben Yoḥanan. The Gemara answers: When they disputed it, that was at the end of the years of Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s life, when the understanding of his heart was limited, due to old age. Therefore, the dispute is considered as though it occurred after his lifetime. The Gemara returns to the matter itself. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. The Jewish people said to Joshua: Ask for guidance from Heaven so that you can reacquire the forgotten halakhot. Joshua said to them: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). Once the Torah was given on Sinai, the Sages of each generation must determine the halakha. No new halakhot may be added or subtracted by heavenly instruction or through prophecy. Many years later the Jewish people again said to Samuel: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven. He said to them: This is not possible, as the Torah states: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses to tell the children of Israel at Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34). The word “these” indicates that from now on a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element related to the Torah and its mitzvot through prophecy. With regard to the topic of the chapter, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: Also, the halakha of a sin offering whose owner has died was one of those forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. At the time of Moses’ death, the people said to Pinehas: Ask for halakhic guidance from Heaven so that you can relearn the forgotten halakhot. Pinehas said to them: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The people said to Elazar: Ask for halakhic guidance from God. He said to them that the verse states: “These are the commandments,” to teach that a prophet is not permitted to introduce any new element from now on. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Just before the time when Moses, our teacher, left this world and went to the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask from me all the cases of uncertainty in matters of halakha that you have, so that I can clarify them for you. Joshua said to him: My teacher, did I ever leave you for even one moment and go to another place? Didn’t you write this about me in the Torah: “But his minister, Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart out of the tent” (Exodus 33:11)? If I would have had any case of uncertainty I would have asked you earlier. Immediately after he said this, Joshua’s strength weakened, and three hundred halakhot were forgotten by him, and seven hundred cases of uncertainty emerged before him, and the entire Jewish people arose to kill him, as he was unable to teach them the forgotten halakhot. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: It is impossible to tell you these halakhot, as the Torah is not in Heaven. But to save yourself from the Jewish people who want to kill you, go and exhaust them in war, so that they will leave you alone. As it is stated: “Now it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of the Lord, that the Lord spoke to Joshua, son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying: Moses My servant is dead, now therefore arise, go over this Jordan” (Joshua 1:1–2). This shows that immediately after the death of Moses, God commanded Joshua to lead the nation into battle. § It is taught in a baraita: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, and verbal analogies, and minutiae of the scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. Rabbi Abbahu says: Even so, Othniel, son of Kenaz, restored them through his sharp mind [pilpulo], as it is stated: “And Caleb said: To he who smites Kiriath Sefer, and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as a wife. And Othniel, son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as a wife” (Joshua 15:16–17).The name “Kiriath Sefer,” which literally means the village of the book, is homiletically interpreted as a reference to those parts of the Torah that were forgotten, while the phrase “took it” is referring to Othniel’s acumen and learning. The baraita adds: And why is she called Achsah? The reason is that anyone who sees her became angry [ko’es] about his own wife, who was not as beautiful as Achsah. The Gemara relates another incident involving Achsah. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her donkey; and Caleb said to her: What do you want?” (Joshua 15:18). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: “And she alighted [vatitznaḥ],” which can also be understood as crying out? Rava says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Achsah said to Caleb: Just as in the case of this donkey, when it has no food in its trough it immediately cries out, so too in the case of a woman, when she has no produce in her house she immediately cries out. The Gemara cites yet another verse involving Achsah: “And she said: Give me a blessing; for that you have set me in the land of the South [negev], and you have given me springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs” (Joshua 15:19). She said to her father: You have given me a home dried [menugav] of all goodness. “And you have given me springs of water”; this is referring to a man who has nothing other than Torah, which is metaphorically called water. But as he is unable to provide me with food, how can I live? “And gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.” Caleb said to her: Does someone learned in Torah, who dwells in the upper worlds and the lower worlds, require that sustenance be requested for him? He certainly does not need it, as God will provide for him in merit of his Torah studies. The Gemara asks: And Caleb, was he the son of Kenaz? Wasn’t he Caleb, son of Jephunneh (Joshua 15:13)? The Gemara explains that Jephunneh was not the name of his father, but a description of Caleb. What does the word Jephunneh mean? It means that he turned [sheppana] from the advice of the spies and did not join with them in their negative report about Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara further asks: But still, was he the son of Kenaz? He was the son of Hezron, as it is written: “And Caleb, 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). Rava said: Caleb was actually the son of Hezron, but after his father passed away his mother remarried Kenaz, and consequently he was the stepson of Kenaz. Othniel, son of Kenaz, was therefore his maternal half brother. A tanna taught in a baraita: The same person is known as Othniel and he is also known as Jabez. And what is his actual name? Judah, brother of Simeon, is his name. He was known as Othniel, as God answered [ana’o El] his prayer. He was also known as Jabez [yabetz] because he advised and spread [ya’atz veribetz] Torah among the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God answered him? As it is written: “And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying: If You will bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that Your hand may be with me, and that You will work deliverance from evil, that it may not pain me! And God granted him that which he requested” (I Chronicles 4:10). The Gemara interprets this verse. The phrase: “If You will bless me indeed,” means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to Torah. “And enlarge my border,” means that he prayed for a blessing with regard to students. “And that Your hand be with me,” that my studies not be forgotten from my heart. “And that You will work deliverance from evil [mera’ati],” that I will find friends [re’im] like me. “That it may not pain me,” that the evil inclination should not grow stronger and prevent me from studying Torah. Othniel further prayed: If You do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed [linsisi] to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him, as the verse states: “And God granted him that which he requested.” On a similar note, you say likewise with regard to the following verse: “The poor man and the oppressor [tekhakhim] meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them” (Proverbs 29:13). When the student, who is poor in his knowledge, goes to his teacher, i.e., one who knows enough to teach but requires further enlightenment himself, as he is a man between [tokh] the levels of a Sage and a commoner, and says to him: Teach me Torah, if the teacher agrees to teach him, then the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them, as they both become greater as a result. But if the teacher will not teach the student, then “the rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). This verse teaches that He Who made this one wise now makes him foolish, and He Who made that one foolish now makes him wise. This is the exposition of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternative interpretation of the prayer of Jabez: “If You will bless me indeed” means with procreation. “And enlarge my border” refers to blessing with sons and with daughters. “And that Your hand may be with me,” indicates in business. “And that You will work deliverance from evil,” so that I will not have a headache or an earache or an eye ache. “That it may not pain me,” that the evil inclination will not grow strong against me and prevent me from studying Torah. Jabez then said to God: If you do so, good; and if not, I will go depressed to my grave and the netherworld. Immediately, God answered him: And God granted him that which he requested. On a similar note, you say an interpretation with regard to the verse: “The poor man and the oppressor meet together; the Lord gives light to the eyes of both of them” (Proverbs 29:13). When a poor person goes to a homeowner and says: Provide for me, if he provides for him, that is good. But if not, then it is stated: “The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). This verse indicates that He Who made this one wealthy now makes him poor, and He Who made that one poor now makes him wealthy. § The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering but not to a communal sin offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose year has passed, these matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering but not with regard to a communal sin offering. The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Five types of sin offerings are left to die, and one may not sacrifice them, and they are: An offspring born to a sin offering, i.e., if a female animal that was consecrated as a sin offering gave birth, its offspring is sacred but cannot be brought as an offering itself; and the substitution of a sin offering, if one substituted another animal for a sin offering, the same sanctity applies to it, but it cannot be sacrificed; and a sin offering whose owner has died; and a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement by sacrificing another offering; and a sin offering whose first year has passed, as a sin offering must be within its first year. Rabbi Shimon continues: You cannot say that there could be an offspring of a sin offering in the case of a community, because there are no female sin offerings separated by the community. And likewise you cannot say that there could be a substitution for a sin offering in the case of a community, because a community cannot render a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for its consecrated one as a substitute. And furthermore, you cannot say that there could be a sin offering whose owners have died in the case of a community, because a community cannot die. With regard to communal offerings whose owners already achieved atonement and a communal offering whose first year has passed, we have not found a similarly clear indication of the halakha. Therefore, one might have thought that these two cases are in effect both for the offering of an individual and a communal offering. But you must say: A person can learn with regard to a case in which certain details are not specified from a similar case where these details are specified. Just as with regard to those offerings whose details are specified, i.e., an offspring of a sin offering, a substitution for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died, the halakha that it dies applies only to an offering of an individual and not to a communal offering, so too, with regard to a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement, and a sin offering whose first year has passed, these matters are said with regard to the offering of an individual, but not with regard to a communal offering.

A house that has a sealed entrance still has the four cubits adjoining that entrance because the entrance can be reopened. If one broke its doorposts and sealed the entrance, the entrance is completely negated, and it does not have the four cubits adjoining it. There is a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. There is a halakha that a house in which there is a corpse transmits ritual impurity only through its doorways. The baraita continues: A grave whose entrance is sealed does not render all its surroundings ritually impure; the ritual impurity extends only to the area opposite the entrance. But if one broke its doorposts and sealed it, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the grave renders all its surroundings ritually impure, because impurity that has no egress bursts from all sides. Similarly, a house in which there is a corpse that has a sealed entrance does not render all its surroundings ritually impure. But if one broke its doorposts, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the corpse renders all of its surroundings ritually impure. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to alleyways that are open to another city, and through which one would ordinarily travel to reach that other city, if the residents of the city in which the alleyways are located wished to block them off, the residents of the city into which the alleyways open can prevent them from doing so, because they have a right to reach their city via those routes. The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state that they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways when there is no alternative route to reach their town, but they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways even when there is an alternative route. This is due to the reasoning that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav says: One is prohibited from ruining a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, i.e., steps may not be taken to prevent people from using it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel says: If the public has chosen a route for itself and they walk on it, what they have chosen is chosen, and it cannot be taken away from them. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to alleyways that open onto a public thoroughfare, if the residents of the alleyways wished to put up doors at the entrance to their alleyways, the people who use the public thoroughfare can prevent them from doing so. Some Sages understood from this that this statement applies specifically to the area within four cubits of the public thoroughfare, in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says, as Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says: The four cubits in an alleyway that are adjacent to the public thoroughfare are considered like the public thoroughfare itself. Consequently, this area has the halakha of a public thoroughfare. But that is not so. There, the ruling of Rav Naḥman was stated with regard to the issue of ritual impurity, with regard to which only the first four cubits of the alleyway are considered like the public thoroughfare. But here, with regard to doors set up at the entrance to the alleyway, sometimes the public thoroughfare becomes crowded with people and they enter far into the alleyway, even farther than four cubits. § The mishna teaches: And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the fundamental halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In Rabbi Yehuda’s locale, even a smaller parcel of land was considered a viable field. The Gemara asks: The mishna was taught in Eretz Yisrael; what practice should be followed in Babylonia? Rav Yosef said: In Babylonia, a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing is considered a field; if each of the parties will receive less than that, the field should not be divided. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing? If it means a day’s plowing in the planting season, i.e., the winter, when it is easy to plow, since the earth has already been turned over at the end of the summer, the field will not require two full days of plowing in the plowing season, i.e., at the end of the summer, when it is more difficult to plow, since the earth is hard and dry. In that case, he will have to pay his summer plowman two days’ wages for less than two days of work. And if it means a day’s plowing in the plowing season, the field will not require a full day of plowing in the planting season. In that case, he will have to pay his winter plowman a full day’s wages for less than a full day of work. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is referring to a day’s plowing in the plowing season, and the field will still require a full day of plowing in the planting season since he plows once before he sows the seeds and then he repeats the plowing after the seeds are sown. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a day’s plowing in the planting season, and the field will in fact require two full days of plowing in the plowing season if it is rocky ground, on which plowing takes longer. In connection with this discussion, the Gemara clarifies the conditions under which a cistern, from which its joint owners draw their water, is divided. Rav Naḥman said: It should be divided only if each party will receive the volume of water needed for a day’s irrigation work. As for an orchard, Shmuel’s father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard. The Gemara asks: What is the measure with regard to this matter in Babylonia? Rava bar Kisna said: Three rows [atzyata] of twelve vines, which is the area a person can hoe in a single day. § In connection with Rabbi Yosei’s statement that Sumakhos’s words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages. Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: “And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy. Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited

(8) When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it.

I called you first, as it is stated: “Israel is the Lord’s hallowed portion, His first fruits of the increase” (Jeremiah 2:3) and I warned you about matters of the first: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart ḥalla for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). The soul that I have placed in you is called ner: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ner] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27), and I warned you about matters of the Shabbat lamp. If you fulfill these mitzvot, fine, and if not, then I will take your soul. And, if so, what is different during childbirth? Why does the divine attribute of judgment punish them for dereliction in fulfillment of these mitzvot specifically then? The Gemara cites several folk sayings expressing the concept that when a person is in danger, he is punished for his sins. Rava said: If the ox fell, sharpen the knife to slaughter it. Abaye said: If the maidservant’s insolence abounds, she will be struck by a single blow as punishment for all her sins. So too, when a woman is giving birth and her suffering is great due to Eve’s sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, all the punishments for her own sins are added to that suffering. Rav Ḥisda said: Leave the drunk, as he falls on his own. Similarly, the time of birth is a time of danger, and if the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not come to her assistance at that time, that is sufficient to cause her death. Mar Ukva said: The shepherd is crippled, and the goats are running, and he cannot catch them. However, next to the gate, he speaks harsh words, and inside the pen he settles the account. Similarly, as long as a woman is in a healthy state, her sins are in abeyance, and she is not held accountable for them. However, when she is giving birth, which is a time of danger, she is held accountable for her sins and a calculation is made whether or not she is worthy of a miracle. Rav Pappa said: At the entrance to the stores, during a time of prosperity, brothers and loved ones abound. When a person is prospering financially, everyone acts like his brother or friend. However, at the gate of disgrace, during a time of loss and poverty, he has no brothers and no loved ones; everyone abandons him. And the Gemara asks: And where are men examined? When are men vulnerable to judgment and held accountable for their actions? Reish Lakish said: When they are crossing a bridge. The Gemara wonders: Only when they are crossing a bridge and at no other time? Rather, say: Anything like a bridge, any place where danger is commonplace. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav would not cross a river in a ferry in which a gentile sat. He said to himself: Perhaps a judgment will be reckoned with him, and I will be caught together with him when he is punished. Whereas, Shmuel would only cross in a ferry if there was a gentile in it. He said: Satan does not have dominion over two nations. He settles his accounts with people from each nationality separately. Rabbi Yannai would examine the ferry and cross. The Gemara comments that Rabbi Yannai acted in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as he said: A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they on High will perform a miracle for him, lest in the end they do not perform a miracle for him. And, moreover, even if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse that alludes to this? When Jacob said: “I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which You have shown unto Your servant” (Genesis 32:11), and he explains: Since You have bestowed upon me so much kindness and truth, my merits have been diminished. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira would not go out and walk among the palm trees on a day when there was a southern wind blowing due to the fear that the trees might fall on him. In a similar vein, Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: A person should always pray that he will not become ill, as if he becomes ill they say to him: Bring proof of your virtue and exempt yourself. It is preferable for a person not to be forced to prove that he merits staying alive, as he might not be able to prove it. Mar Ukva said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it says: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you bring not blood upon your house, if the fallen falls mimenu” (Deuteronomy 22:8). He explains: Mimenu, from him proof must be brought. When one falls from his previous situation, it is his own responsibility to prove his innocence and emerge unharmed. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning of the phrase: If the fallen falls from it? This person was destined to fall from that roof from the six days of Creation, it was ingrained into nature. As, although he did not yet fall, the verse calls him fallen. Nevertheless, the owner of the house is indicted for this, as merit is engendered by means of the innocent and guilt by means of the guilty. The Sages taught: One who became ill and tended toward death, they say to him: Confess, as all those executed by the courts confess. Even if he is dying of natural causes, it is worthwhile for him to consider his death atonement for his sins. The Sages said: When a person goes out to the marketplace where there are fights and disputes, he should consider himself as someone who has been handed over to a soldier [seradiyot]. If his head hurt, he should consider it as if they placed him in a chain [kolar] around his neck. If he climbed into bed and fell ill, he should consider himself as if they took him up to the gallows to be judged, as with regard to anyone who goes up to the gallows to be judged, if he has great advocates [peraklitin], he is spared, and if not, he is not spared. And with regard to divine judgment, these are a person’s advocates: Repentance and good deeds. The Gemara comments: And even if there are nine hundred ninety-nine asserting his guilt and only one asserting his innocence, he is spared, as it is stated: “If there be for him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand, to vouch for a man’s uprightness; then He is gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom” (Job 33:23–24). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Even if there are nine hundred ninety-nine portions within that same angel accusing him, and one portion asserting his innocence, he is spared, as it stated: “An advocate, one among a thousand.” Even when the advocate who asserts his innocence finds only one-tenth of one percent of innocence in this man, even then, he is gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. The Sages taught in a baraita: For three transgressions women die in childbirth [yoledot]. Rabbi Elazar has a different version and says that women die when they are young [yeladot]. These transgressions are those enumerated in the mishna: The halakhot of a menstruating woman, ḥalla, and Shabbat lights. Rabbi Aḥa says they are punished for the sin of laundering their children’s feces from clothing on Shabbat. And some say: Because they call the Holy Ark simply ark. Similarly, we learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elazar says: On account of two sins, ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz] die young (Rav Ya’akov Emden): Because they call the Holy Ark simply ark, and because they call the synagogue the house of the people. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Three crucibles potentially leading to death were created in the woman, and some say: Three accelerants of death. They are: Menstruation, ḥalla, and lighting the Shabbat lights. The Gemara explains that one version, accelerants of death, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that women die young. And the other one, crucibles of death, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that women die in childbirth. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The halakhot of consecrated items, terumot, and tithes are themselves the essence of Torah and are extremely severe,

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.