אתיוהו לרבי חנינא בן תרדיון אמרו ליה אמאי קא עסקת באורייתא אמר להו כאשר צוני יקוק אלקי מיד גזרו עליו לשריפה ועל אשתו להריגה ועל בתו לישב בקובה של זונות עליו לשריפה שהיה הוגה את השם באותיותיו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תורה מן השמים ואין תחיית המתים מן התורה אבא שאול אומר אף ההוגה את השם באותיותיו להתלמד עבד כדתניא (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות אלא מאי טעמא אענש משום הוגה את השם בפרהסיא דהוי ועל אשתו להריגה דלא מיחה ביה מכאן אמרו כל מי שיש בידו למחות ואינו מוחה נענש עליו ועל בתו לישב בקובה של זונות דאמר ר' יוחנן פעם אחת היתה בתו מהלכת לפני גדולי רומי אמרו כמה נאות פסיעותיה של ריבה זו מיד דקדקה בפסיעותיה והיינו דאמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש מאי דכתיב (תהלים מט, ו) עון עקבי יסבני עונות שאדם דש בעקביו בעולם הזה מסובין לו ליום הדין בשעה שיצאו שלשתן צדקו עליהם את הדין הוא אמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו [וגו'] ואשתו אמרה (דברים לב, ד) אל אמונה ואין עול בתו אמרה (ירמיהו לב, יט) גדול העצה ורב העליליה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי וגו' אמר רבי [כמה] גדולים צדיקים הללו שנזדמנו להן שלש מקראות של צדוק הדין בשעת צדוק הדין:
pronounce the ineffable name of God with all of its letters, i.e., as it is spelled. The Gemara asks: And how could he do that? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Sanhedrin 90a): These are the people who have no share in the World-to-Come: One who says that the Torah is not from Heaven or that there is no source from the Torah for the resurrection of the dead. Abba Shaul says: Also one who pronounces the ineffable name as it is written, with all of its letters, has no share in the World-to-Come. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon did it to teach himself, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against sorcery: “You shall not learn to do” (Deuteronomy 18:9); this indicates: But you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, certain prohibitions do not apply when one is acting only in order to acquire knowledge of the subject. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason that he was punished? The Gemara answers: He was punished because he would pronounce the ineffable name of God in public, instead of privately. And his wife was condemned to execution by decapitation because she did not protest his doing so. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who has the capability to protest effectively the sinful conduct of another and does not protest is punished for that person’s sin. The Gemara asks: And why was his daughter condemned to sit in a brothel? As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Once, the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon was walking before the nobles of Rome, and they said to each other: How pleasant are the steps of this young woman. Upon hearing this, she immediately took care to keep walking in such a fashion that her steps would continue to be pleasing to them. And this is the same as that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The iniquity of my heel encircles me” (Psalms 49:6)? It means that the sins that a person tramples with one’s heel in this world, i.e., dismisses and pays no attention to them as they seem to lack importance, e.g., the way that one walks, come and encircle him on the Day of Judgment. The Gemara relates: When the three of them went out after being sentenced, they accepted the justice of God’s judgment. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said: “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). And his wife said the continuation of the verse: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity.” His daughter said: “Great in counsel, and mighty in work; whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways” (Jeremiah 32:19). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How great are these righteous people, that these three verses, which speak of the acceptance of God’s judgment, occurred to them at the time of accepting the righteousness of His judgment. § The Sages taught: When Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma fell ill, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon went to visit him. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Ḥanina my brother, do you not know that this nation has been given reign by a decree from Heaven? The proof is that Rome has destroyed God’s Temple, and burned His Sanctuary, and killed His pious ones, and destroyed His best ones, and it still exists. Evidently, all of this is by Divine decree. And yet I heard about you that you sit and engage in Torah study, and convene assemblies in public, and have a Torah scroll placed in your lap, thereby demonstrating complete disregard for the decrees issued by the Romans. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: Heaven will have mercy and protect me. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: I am saying reasonable matters to you, and you say to me: Heaven will have mercy? I wonder if the Romans will not burn both you and your Torah scroll by fire. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: My teacher, what will become of me? Am I destined for life in the World-to-Come? Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: Did any special incident occur to you which might serve as an indication? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: I confused my own coins that I needed for the festivities of Purim with coins of charity, and I distributed them all to the poor at my own expense. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: If that is so, may my portion be of your portion, and may my lot be of your lot. The Sages said: Not even a few days passed before Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma died of his illness, and all of the Roman notables went to bury him, and they eulogized him with a great eulogy. And upon their return, they found Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon, who was sitting and engaging in Torah study and convening assemblies in public, with a Torah scroll placed in his lap. They brought him to be sentenced, and wrapped him in the Torah scroll, and encircled him with bundles of branches, and they set fire to it. And they brought tufts of wool and soaked them in water, and placed them on his heart, so that his soul should not leave his body quickly, but he would die slowly and painfully. His daughter said to him: Father, must I see you like this? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to her: If I alone were being burned, it would be difficult for me, but now that I am burning along with a Torah scroll, He who will seek retribution for the insult accorded to the Torah scroll will also seek retribution for the insult accorded to me. His students said to him: Our teacher, what do you see? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: I see the parchment burning, but its letters are flying to the heavens. They said to him: You too should open your mouth and the fire will enter you, and you will die quickly. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to them: It is preferable that He who gave me my soul should take it away, and one should not harm oneself to speed his death. The executioner [kaltzatoniri] said to him: My teacher, if I increase the flame and take off the tufts of wool from your heart, so that you will die sooner and suffer less, will you bring me to the life of the World-to-Come? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to the executioner: Yes. The executioner said: Take an oath for me, that what you say is true. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon took the oath for him, and the executioner immediately increased the flame and took off the tufts of wool from his heart, causing his soul to leave his body quickly. The executioner too leaped and fell into the fire and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon and the executioner are destined for the life of the World-to-Come. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment, such as the executioner, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. § The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her. Rabbi Meir went and dressed as a Roman knight, and said to her: Accede to my wishes, i.e., engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am menstruating [dashtana] and cannot. He said to her: I will wait. She said to him: There are many women in the brothel, and there are many women here who are more beautiful than I. He said to himself: I can conclude from her responses that she did not commit a transgression, as she presumably said this to all who come. Rabbi Meir went over to her guard, and said to him: Give her to me. The guard said to him: I fear that if I do so, I will be punished by the government. Rabbi Meir said to him: Take this vessel full of dinars; give half to the government as a bribe, and half will be for you. The guard said to him: But when the money is finished, what shall I do? Rabbi Meir said to him: Say: God of Meir answer me! And you will be saved. The guard said to him:
שלשתן צדקו עליהן את הדין. ג' מקראות הללו שנזדמנו להם כ"א הוא מענינו שהוא אמר הצור תמים וגו' באותיות של שמו שפעל ועשה בהן העולם שנאמר כי ביה יקוק צור עולמים פעלו תמים אבל אני שפעלתי והגיתי באותיות של שמו כפרש"י לעיל ועושה בו מה שהוא חפץ אין פעולתו תמים כמ"ש בעוסקין בספר יצירה שבראו להם עבדים והיה חסר מהם כח הדבור והיא אשתו אמרה אל אמונה על שנתאלמנה מאישה ואין עול על הריגת עצמה אף שלא חטאה בשום דבר צדקה הדין עליה דאין עול במשפטה דהוה לה למחות כו' ובתו אמרה גדול העצה על שריפת אביה שנגזר עליו מעצה העמוקה שנגזר מן השמים על עשרה הרוגי מלכות א"נ בעצה עמוקה של י' בני יעקב במכירת יוסף נהרגו י' הרוגי מלכות כדאיתא במדרשות ועל אמה אמרה ורב העליליה מל' עלילה דברוב עלילה נגזר עליה הריגה ועל עצמה צדקה הדין עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי וגו' כפרש"י וק"ל:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה, וְדַע מַה שֶּׁתָּשִׁיב לְאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס. וְדַע לִפְנֵי מִי אַתָּה עָמֵל. וְנֶאֱמָן הוּא בַעַל מְלַאכְתְּךָ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֶּם לָךְ שְׂכַר פְּעֻלָּתֶךְ:
R. Elazar says: Be diligent in learning Torah and know what to reply to an apikores, [from "hefker" (ownerless), one who shames the Torah and regards it as if it were hefker. Or: He makes himself hefker, not pitying his soul, not feeling that evil will come upon him for shaming the Torah or its learners.], and know before whom you toil, [in this reply that you make to the apikores that he not entice you to his beliefs] and your Employer is trusted to pay you for your labor.
מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס. אמר צריך שתלמד דברים שתשיב בהם לאפיקורסים מן עובדי כוכבים ותחלוק עליהם ותשיבם אם יקשו לך ואמרו לא שנו אלא אפיקורוס עובד כוכבים אבל אפיקורוס ישראל כ"ש דפקר טפי ר"ל שיוסיף לבזות ומפני זה אין צריך לדבר עמו כלל שאין לו תקנה ואין לו רפואה כלל ועקר שנא' כל באיה לא ישובון ולא ישיגו ארחות חיים ואמרו אף על פי שתלמד דעות האומות לדעת איך תשיב עליהם. השמר שלא יעלה בלבך דבר מן הדעות ההם ודע שמי שתעבוד לפניו יודע צפון לבך והוא אמרו ודע לפני מי אתה עמל רצה לומר שיכוין לבו באמונת השם יתברך:
know what to respond to one who denigrates the Torah (epikoros): He said that you need to study things which you can respond to the epikoros from the [gentiles] and disagree with them and answer them if they challenge you. And they said, (Sanhedrin 38b), "They only taught about the gentile epikoros, but with the Jewish epikoros, if you answer him, all the more so will he rebel" - meaning to say, he will denigrate [even] more. And because of this, there is no need to speak with him at all, as he has no redemption and he has completely no cure at all - as it is stated (Proverbs 2:19, "All who go to her cannot return, and they will not find the paths of life." And he said, "Even though you study the opinions of the nations to know what to answer them, guard yourself that anything from these opinions come into your heart; and know that the One before whom you serve knows what is hidden in your heart." And this is his saying, "Know before Whom you labor" - wanting to say that he direct his heart to faith in God, may He be blessed.
מתני׳ המדיח זה האומר נלך ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים המכשף העושה מעשה חייב ולא האוחז את העינים ר"ע אומר משום ר' יהושע שנים לוקטין קשואין אחד לוקט פטור ואחד לוקט חייב העושה מעשה חייב האוחז את העינים פטור:
It is merely a mnemonic. The verse is not relevant to this halakha, and it is cited merely as a sign indicating that just as the halakha of a betrothed young woman pertains to her first act of sexual intercourse, so too, the halakha of the daughter of a priest who committed adultery pertains to a case where it is her first disqualification from the priesthood. MISHNA: With regard to the case of an inciter, listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is an ordinary person, not a prophet. And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person and not a multitude of people. What does the inciter do? He says: There is an idol in such and such a place, which eats like this, drinks like this, does good for its worshippers like this, and harms those who do not worship it like this. The mishna states a principle with regard to the halakha of an inciter: With regard to all of those mentioned in the Torah who are liable to receive the death penalty, if there are no witnesses to their transgressions, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare and punish them, except for this case of an inciter. The mishna elaborates: If the inciter said his words of incitement to two men, they are his witnesses, and he does not need to be warned before the transgression; they bring him to court and stone him. If he said his words of incitement to one man alone, that man’s testimony would not be sufficient to have the inciter executed. Therefore he says to the inciter: I have friends who are interested in this; tell them too. This way there will be more witnesses. The mishna continues: If the inciter is cunning, and he knows that he cannot speak in front of two men, the court hides witnesses for him behind the fence so that he will not see them, and the man whom the inciter had previously tried to incite says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And the other person, the inciter, says to him again that he should worship the idol. And he says to the inciter: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and go and worship wood and stones? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty; this is what suits us, then those standing behind the fence bring him to court and have him stoned. The halakha of an inciter includes one who says: I shall worship idols, or one of the following statements: I shall go and worship idols, or: let us go and worship idols, or: I shall sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: Let us go and sacrifice an idolatrous offering, or: I shall burn incense as an idolatrous offering, or: I shall go and burn incense, or: Let us go and burn incense, or: I shall pour an idolatrous libation, or: I shall go and pour a libation, or: Let us go and pour a libation, or: I shall bow to an idol, or: I shall go and bow, or: Let us go and bow. GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the case of an inciter, this is an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he is an ordinary person, but if he is a prophet he is executed by strangulation, not by stoning. The mishna states further: And it is referring to one who incites an ordinary person. The Gemara infers: The reason he is executed by stoning is that he incited an individual, but if he subverted a multitude of people, he is executed by strangulation. Consequently, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who subverted others to participate in idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. Likewise, the subverters of an idolatrous city are executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: By strangulation. The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause of the mishna, i.e., say the following mishna: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says: Let us go and worship idols. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In this mishna the Sages taught the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that those who incite a multitude of people are also executed by stoning. Is it possible that the first clause of the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and the last clause expresses that of the Rabbis? Ravina says: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the tanna teaches the mishna employing the style of: Not only this but also that. In other words, the mishna should be explained as follows: Not only is one who incites an individual executed by stoning, but even one who subverts an entire city is executed by stoning. Rav Pappa says: When the mishna teaches with regard to one who incites that this is referring to an ordinary person, it is not indicating that a prophet is not included in this halakha. Rather, it is referring to the hiding of witnesses behind a fence in order to ensnare the inciter, as his life is treated with contempt and derision, as though he were an ordinary person, i.e., a simpleton. As it is taught in a baraita: And with regard to all the rest of those liable to receive the death penalty by Torah law, the court does not hide witnesses in order to ensnare them and punish them except for this case of an inciter. How does the court do this to him? The agents of the court light a candle for him in an inner room, and they place witnesses for him in an outer room in the dark, so that they can see him and hear his voice but he cannot see them. And the other person, whom the inciter had previously tried to incite, says to him: Say what you said to me when we were in seclusion. And he says to him again that he should worship the idol. And the other person says to him: How can we forsake our God in Heaven and worship idols? If the inciter retracts his suggestion, that is good. But if he says: This idol worship is our duty, and this is what suits us, the witnesses, who are listening from outside, bring him to court, and they have him stoned. And the court did the same to an inciter named ben Setada, from the city of Lod, and they hanged him on Passover eve. The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband. MISHNA: With regard to the case of the subverter listed among those liable to be executed by stoning, this is one who says to a multitude of people: Let us go and worship idols. The warlock is also liable to be executed by stoning. One who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, but not one who deceives the eyes, making it appear as though he is performing sorcery, as that is not considered sorcery. Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: For example, two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery. One of them gathers cucumbers and he is exempt, and the other one gathers cucumbers and he is liable. How so? The one who performs a real act of sorcery is liable, and the one who deceives the eyes is exempt. GEMARA: With regard to the case of subverters mentioned in the mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Sages taught here the case of the subverters of an idolatrous city. Accordingly, there is no halakhic difference between one who incites individuals to idolatry and one who subverts an entire city; both are liable to be executed by stoning. The mishna teaches that the case of the warlock is referring to one who performs a real act of sorcery. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), does not refer only to a female who practices sorcery; both a man and a woman are included. If so, why does verse state “a witch”? This is because most women are familiar with witchcraft. In what manner is their death sentence administered? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to the conquest of the Canaanites: “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” (Deuteronomy 20:16). Just as there, the Canaanites were to be killed by the sword (see Numbers 21:24), so too here, the execution of a witch is administered by the sword. Rabbi Akiva says: It is stated here: “You shall not allow a witch to live,” and it is stated there, with regard to Mount Sinai: “No hand shall touch it, for he shall be stoned, or thrown down; whether it be animal or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13). Just as there, the verse speaks of stoning, so too here, a witch is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: I derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “You shall allow nothing that breathes to live” via a verbal analogy between two similar phrases, but you derived the meaning of the verse “You shall not allow a witch to live” from the verse “It shall not live,” which is a less similar phrase. Rabbi Akiva said to him: I derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning Jews, with regard to whom the verse included many types of death penalties. Therefore, the fact that the expression “It shall not live” refers to stoning when stated with regard to Jews is especially significant. But you derived a halakha concerning Jews from a halakha concerning gentiles, with regard to whom the verse included only
אמר רבי עקיבא: והא ר' עקיבא מר' יהושע גמיר לה והתניא כשחלה ר' אליעזר נכנסו ר' עקיבא וחביריו לבקרו ... ולא עוד אלא שאני שונה שלש מאות הלכות בבהרת עזה ולא היה אדם ששואלני בהן דבר מעולם ולא עוד אלא שאני שונה שלש מאות הלכות ואמרי לה שלשת אלפים הלכות בנטיעת קשואין ולא היה אדם שואלני בהן דבר מעולם חוץ מעקיבא בן יוסף פעם אחת אני והוא מהלכין היינו בדרך אמר לי רבי למדני בנטיעת קשואין אמרתי דבר אחד נתמלאה כל השדה קשואין אמר לי רבי למדתני נטיעתן למדני עקירתן אמרתי דבר אחד נתקבצו כולן למקום אחד ... ויצאה נשמתו בטהרה עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר הותר הנדר הותר הנדר למוצאי שבת פגע בו רבי עקיבא מן קיסרי ללוד היה מכה בבשרו עד שדמו שותת לארץ פתח עליו בשורה ואמר (מלכים ב ב, יב) אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו הרבה מעות יש לי ואין לי שולחני להרצותן אלמא מרבי אליעזר גמרה גמרה מרבי אליעזר ולא סברה הדר גמרה מרבי יהושע ואסברה ניהליה היכי עביד הכי והאנן תנן העושה מעשה חייב להתלמד שאני דאמר מר (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות לעשות אי אתה למד אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות:
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Akiva learn these halakhot from Rabbi Yehoshua? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Rabbi Eliezer took ill, Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues came to visit him. He was sitting on his canopied bed [bekinof ], and they were sitting in his parlor [biteraklin]; they did not know if he would be able to receive them, due to his illness. And that day was Shabbat eve, and Rabbi Eliezer’s son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries, as phylacteries are not worn on Shabbat. His father berated him, and he left reprimanded. Hyrcanus said to his father’s colleagues: It appears to me that father went insane, since he berated me for no reason. Rabbi Eliezer heard this and said to them: He, Hyrcanus, and his mother went insane. How can they neglect Shabbat preparations with regard to prohibitions punishable by stoning, such as lighting the candles and preparing hot food, and engage in preparations concerning prohibitions by rabbinic decree, such as wearing phylacteries on Shabbat? Since the Sages perceived from this retort that his mind was stable, they entered and sat before him at a distance of four cubits, as he was ostracized (see Bava Metzia 59b). It is forbidden to sit within four cubits of an ostracized person. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Why have you come? They said to him: We have come to study Torah, as they did not want to say that they came to visit him due to his illness. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And why have you not come until now? They said to him: We did not have spare time. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: I would be surprised if these Sages die their own death, i.e., a natural death. Rather, they will be tortured to death by the Romans. Rabbi Akiva said to him: How will my death come about? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Your death will be worse than theirs, as you were my primary student and you did not come to study. Rabbi Eliezer raised his two arms and placed them on his heart, and he said: Woe to you, my two arms, as they are like two Torah scrolls that are now being rolled up, and will never be opened again. I have learned much Torah, and I have taught much Torah. I have learned much Torah, and I have not taken away from my teachers, i.e., I have not received from their wisdom, even like a dog lapping from the sea. I have taught much Torah, and my students have taken away from me, i.e., they have received from my wisdom, only like the tiny amount that a paintbrush removes from a tube of paint. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot with regard to a snow-white leprous mark [bebaheret], but no person has ever asked me anything about them. He could not find a student who could fully understand him in those matters. Moreover, I can teach three hundred halakhot, and some say that Rabbi Eliezer said three thousand halakhot, with regard to the planting of cucumbers by sorcery, but no person has ever asked me anything about them, besides Akiva ben Yosef. Rabbi Eliezer described the incident: Once he and I were walking along the way, and he said to me: My teacher, teach me about the planting of cucumbers. I said one statement of sorcery, and the entire field became filled with cucumbers. He said to me: My teacher, you have taught me about planting them; teach me about uprooting them. I said one statement and they all were gathered to one place. After these comments, the Sages asked him questions of halakha: What is the halakha, with regard to ritual impurity, of a ball made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise a last, the frame on which a shoe is fashioned, which is made of leather and stuffed with rags, and likewise an amulet wrapped in leather, and a pouch for pearls, wrapped in leather, and a small weight, which is wrapped in leather? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They are susceptible to impurity, and their purification is effected by immersing them in a ritual bath as they are, as there is no need to open them up. They asked him further: What is the halakha with regard to a shoe that is on a last? Is it considered a complete vessel, which needs no further preparation, and is therefore susceptible to impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is pure, and with this word, his soul left him in purity. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: The vow is permitted; the vow is permitted; i.e., the ostracism that was placed on Rabbi Eliezer is removed. Rabbi Akiva was not present at the time of his death. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rabbi Akiva encountered the funeral procession on his way from Caesarea to Lod. Rabbi Akiva was striking his flesh in terrible anguish and regret until his blood flowed to the earth. He began to eulogize Rabbi Eliezer in the row of those comforting the mourners, and said: “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (II Kings 2:12). I have many coins, but I do not have a money changer to whom to give them, i.e., I have many questions, but after your death I have no one who can answer them. The Gemara returns to the matter at hand: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva learned the halakhot of gathering cucumbers through sorcery from Rabbi Eliezer, not from Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara answers: He learned it from Rabbi Eliezer but he did not understand it. Later he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Yehoshua explained it to him. The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer have performed that act of sorcery? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that one who performs an act of sorcery is liable? The Gemara answers: Performing sorcery not in order to use it, but in order to teach oneself the halakhot is different, and it is permitted; as the Master says that it is derived from the verse: “You shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you…one who uses divination, a soothsayer, an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10), so that you shall not learn, i.e., it is prohibited for you to learn, in order to do, but you may learn, i.e., it is permitted for you to learn, in order to understand the matter yourself and teach it to others.
מַתְנִי׳ דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנָה הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּטַבְלָא וּבְכוֹתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּיתוֹ שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָּזֶה:
that the sun is shooting arrows at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow. The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun. § The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: How high was the moon over the horizon, and in which direction did it tilt? It was taught in one baraita: If the witness testifies that he saw the moon to the north of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says that he saw it to its south, he has not said anything of significance, as this is impossible. The Gemara asks: Isn’t the opposite taught in a different baraita: If he testifies that he saw the moon to the south of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says he saw it to its north, he has not said anything. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the summer, when the moon is to the south of the sun; there, in the first baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the rainy season, when the moon is to the north of the sun. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one witness says that he saw the moon two plow handles high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three plow handles high, their testimony is valid, as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable. However, if one says that he saw the moon three plow handles above the horizon, and the other one says it was five plow handles high, their testimony is void, as that discrepancy is unacceptable. However, this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may join with another testimony, i.e., he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise. The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but we saw it reflected in the water, or we saw it reflected in a glass lantern, or we saw it through thin clouds, they may not testify about it, as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable. If they say: We saw half of the moon’s reflection in the water, or we saw half of it through the clouds, or we saw half of it in a lantern, they still may not testify about it. The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Now, if when one sees the entire moon in this manner, you said that this is not valid testimony, is it necessary to teach that one may not testify when he sees only half of it? Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses saw half of the moon’s reflection in water and half of it directly in the sky, or half of it through the clouds and half of it in the sky, or half of it in a lantern and half of it in the sky, although they saw half of the moon directly, they may not testify about it until they see the entire moon in the sky. The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: One moment we saw the new moon, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. The Gemara asks: Must they go on watching it to such an extent, i.e., why should they have to see it for a long period of time? Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses say: We saw the moon on our own accord, i.e., by chance, without looking for it, and then we returned to look for it on purpose, to deliver precise testimony about it, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. What is the reason? Because one can say that the first time it was merely a small round white cloud that they saw, which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it. MISHNA: After the witnesses have been examined and their testimony accepted, the head of the court says: It is sanctified. And all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. Whether the moon was seen at its anticipated time, on the thirtieth day of the previous month, or whether it was not seen at its anticipated time, in which case witnesses are not necessary to establish the following day as the New Moon, the court sanctifies it and formally proclaims the day as the New Moon. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day, as the celestial court in Heaven has already sanctified it, precluding the need for the additional sanctification by the earthly court. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the head of the court says: It is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the court must sanctify the New Moon, derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the verse states: “And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44). From here it is derived that the head of the court says: It is sanctified, as it is evident from the verse that Moses, whose status was equivalent to that of the head of the Great Sanhedrin, declared the appointed times of the Festivals and New Moons in a formal manner. § The mishna further teaches that after the head of the court says: It is sanctified, all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “Which you shall proclaim them [otam] to be sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:2). Instead of otam, read into the verse: You [atem], as though the verse stated: Which you shall proclaim, you. This superfluous word you teaches that the month must be proclaimed not only by the head of the court, but also by you, the people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it is derived from the phrase: “These are [hem] My appointed seasons” (Leviticus 23:2). The term hem can also mean: They, which indicates that they, the people, should likewise say and announce My appointed seasons. The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the people to declare: It is sanctified; it is sanctified, twice? The Gemara answers that the reason is that it is written: “Sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:2) in the plural, which indicates that they must announce it twice. § The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day. The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: If the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification. However, if the new moon was seen not at its anticipated time, the court must sanctify the New Moon. The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, the court does not sanctify the New Moon formally, as it is stated: “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year” (Leviticus 25:10), from which it is derived: You must formally sanctify years in court, but you do not have to formally sanctify months, as they are sanctified automatically by Heaven. Rather, it is enough merely to announce to the public that a certain day was established as the New Moon. Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, that if the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the new month; however, if it was not seen at its anticipated time, they do not sanctify it. Abaye said: We, too, learn in a mishna: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, and the witnesses were interrogated, but the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. This indicates that full, yes; i.e., in this case, it is necessary to extend the previous month. However, sanctified, no; there is no need to formally sanctify the month, as the New Moon does not occur on its anticipated date in this case. The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here, as it was necessary for the mishna to mention that the month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the new moon, it has become public knowledge and therefore there is no need to render the previous month a full, thirty-day month. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the previous month must be extended. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the New Moon must be formally sanctified on the following day. MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel had a diagram of the different forms of the moon drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen. And he would say to them: Did you see a form like this or like this? GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to create these types of forms? Isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold” (Exodus 20:19), which is interpreted as teaching: You shall not make images of My attendants, i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon? § Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only the images of those attendants with regard to which it is possible to reproduce an item in their likeness. Since it is impossible for anyone to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these objects. As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico in the exact form of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the candelabrum in the Temple. However, one may fashion
וַעֲשִׂיָּיה גְּרֵידְתָּא מִי שְׁרֵי וְהָתַנְיָא לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי לֹא תַּעֲשׂוּן כִּדְמוּת שַׁמָּשַׁיי הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין לְפָנַי כְּגוֹן חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה כּוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת שָׁאנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דַּאֲחֵרִים עָשׂוּ לוֹ ... רַבִּים שָׁאנֵי וְהָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל יָחִיד הוּא כֵּיוָן דְּנָשִׂיא הוּא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים גַּבֵּיהּ אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דִּפְרָקִים הֲוָה וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לְהִתְלַמֵּד עֲבַד וּכְתִיב לֹא תִּלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת אֲבָל אַתָּה לָמֵד לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת:
a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight lamps. But one may not fashion a candelabrum with seven lamps even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, as in exigent circumstances the candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Also, one may not fashion a candelabrum of wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned it. When they first purified the Temple they had to prepare the candelabrum out of wood, as no other material was available. Since this candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself. The other Sages said to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: From there you seek to bring a proof? There the branches of the candelabrum were comprised of spits [shippudin] of iron and they covered them with tin. Later, when they grew richer and could afford a candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned them from silver. When they grew even richer, they fashioned them from gold. Still, Abaye proves from this baraita that the prohibition against forming an image applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamliel’s forms were permitted. The Gemara asks: And is it really permitted to form images of those attendants concerning which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19), comes to teach: You shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high. Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon. Abaye said: This does not include the sun and the moon, as the Torah prohibited only the fashioning of an image of all four faces of the creatures of the Heavenly Chariot together (see Ezekiel, chapter 1). However, all other images, which are not the likeness of the ministering angels, are permitted. The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, if that is so, let the fashioning of an image of a human face [partzuf ] alone be permitted. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: All faces are permitted for ornamental purposes, except for the face of a person? Rav Huna, son of Rav Idi, said: From a lecture of Abaye I heard that there is a different reason why one may not form an image of a human face, as the verse states: “You shall not make with Me [iti]” (Exodus 20:19). This can be read as: You shall not make Me [oti]. Since man is created in the image of God, it is prohibited to form an image of a human being. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to form images of other attendants? Isn’t it taught in another baraita that the verse: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19), teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high, for example, ofanim and seraphim and the sacred ḥayyot and the ministering angels. Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only those attendants that are found in the upper Heaven, i.e., the supreme angels in the highest firmament, but not the celestial bodies, e.g., the sun and the moon, despite the fact that they too are located in heaven. The Gemara raises another difficulty: And is it permitted to form images of those bodies found in the lower heaven? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: “You shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:3). The phrase “that is in heaven” comes to include the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations. The term “above” serves to include the ministering angels. Apparently, it is prohibited to form an image even of the celestial bodies found in the lower Heaven. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is in reference to the prohibition against worshipping them. However, there is no prohibition against forming an image in their likeness. The Gemara asks: If that baraita is referring to the prohibition against worshipping them, then even a tiny worm should also be prohibited. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, as it is taught in the same baraita with regard to the continuation of the verse, “in the earth” comes to include mountains and hills, seas and rivers, streams and valleys; “beneath” comes to include a tiny worm. If so, it is indeed possible to explain that the entire baraita is referring to the prohibition against idol worship. The Gemara raises yet another objection: And is the mere fashioning of images of the celestial bodies permitted? Isn’t it taught in another baraita: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver” (Exodus 20:19). This verse teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me, for example the sun, the moon, the stars and the constellations. This is explicit proof that it is prohibited to form images of the sun and the moon; consequently, the solution proposed by Abaye is rejected, leaving the difficulty with Rabban Gamliel’s diagram unresolved. The Gemara proposes an alternative resolution: The case of Rabban Gamliel is different, as others, i.e., gentiles, fashioned those images for him, and it is prohibited only for a Jew to fashion such images; there is no prohibition against having them in one’s possession. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of Rav Yehuda, as others fashioned for him a seal in the form of a human being, and Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, who was his student: Sharp-witted one, blind this one’s eyes, i.e., disfigure the image, as it is prohibited even to have the image of a human being in one’s possession. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rav Yehuda, his was a protruding seal, i.e., the image projected from the ring, and Shmuel prohibited it due to the potential suspicion that he had an object of idol worship in his hand. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a ring, if its seal protrudes it is prohibited to place it on one’s finger, due to the suspicion of idol worship, but it is permitted to seal objects with it. In this case, the act of sealing creates an image that is sunken below the surface, which is not prohibited. However, if its seal is sunken, it is permitted to place it on one’s finger, but it is prohibited to seal objects with it, as that creates a protruding image. The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about arousing suspicion in a case of this kind? But what about that certain synagogue that had been destroyed in Eretz Yisrael and its stones were relocated and it was rebuilt so that it sat in Neharde’a, and there was a statue [andarta] of the king in it. And nevertheless Rav and Shmuel and Shmuel’s father and Levi would all enter and pray there and they were not concerned about arousing suspicion. The Gemara answers: When many Jews are present it is different, as a large group is not suspected of having idolatrous intentions. Rather, it is assumed that the statue is there exclusively for purposes of ornamentation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rabban Gamliel an individual? According to this reasoning, his images of the moon should have been prohibited, as they would have aroused suspicion. The Gemara answers: Since he is the Nasi, the head of the Great Sanhedrin, many people were always found with him, and therefore there was no room for suspicion. The Gemara suggests an alternative answer: If you wish, say that these images were not whole; rather, they were formed from pieces of images that had to be put together. Only complete images are prohibited. The Gemara suggests yet another answer: If you wish, say: Rabban Gamliel did this to teach himself, which is not prohibited, as it is written: “You shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9), which indicates: However, you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, it is permitted to do certain things for the sake of Torah study which would otherwise be prohibited. MISHNA: There was an incident in which two witnesses came to testify about the new moon, and they said: We saw the waning moon in the morning in the east,
אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: הַמּוֹתֵחַ חוּט שֶׁל תְּפִירָה בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, וְהַלּוֹמֵד דָּבָר אֶחָד מִן הַמָּגוֹשׁ — חַיָּיב מִיתָה, וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ לְחַשֵּׁב תְּקוּפוֹת וּמַזָּלוֹת וְאֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב — אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר הֵימֶנּוּ. אַמְגּוּשְׁתָּא — רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: חָרָשֵׁי, וְחַד אָמַר: גָּדוֹפֵי. תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַב דְּאָמַר גָּדוֹפֵי, דְּאָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: הַלּוֹמֵד דָּבָר אֶחָד מִן הַמָּגוֹשׁ חַיָּיב מִיתָה. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חָרָשֵׁי: הָכְתִיב ״לֹא תִלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת״ — אֲבָל אַתָּה לָמֵד לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת — תִּסְתַּיֵּים:
As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear. Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty. And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper. The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics. The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty. As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn’t it written: “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: “They do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork” (Isaiah 5:12). And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all. We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a ḥilazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a ḥilazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead. Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the ḥilazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a ḥilazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the ḥilazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live ḥilazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the ḥilazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences. We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.
אמגושא - פי' בערוך דפליגי בהא דאמר רב פפא באלו מגלחין (מו"ק יח.) פרעה אמגושי היה דכתיב הנה יוצא המימה חד אמר לעשות כשפים היה יוצא וחד אמר גדופי שהיה עושה עצמו ע"ז שהיה אומר לי יאורי ואני עשיתני ואין נראה לר"י דפליגי רב ושמואל במאי דאמר רב פפא אלא פליגי אאמגושא שנזכר בשום מקום במשנה או בברייתא:
(א) לא תלמד לעשות. אֲבָל אַתָּה לָמֵד לְהָבִין וּלְהוֹרוֹת, כְּלוֹמַר לְהָבִין מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כַּמָּה הֵם מְקֻלְקָלִים, וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְבָנֶיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָךְ וְכָךְ, שֶׁזֶּה הוּא חֹק הַגּוֹיִם (ספרי; סנהדרין ס"ח):
(1) לא תלמד לעשות THOU SHALT NOT LEARN TO DO [AFTER THE ABOMINATIONS OF THOSE NATIONS] — thou shalt not learn to do, but you may learn their practices in order to understand them and to teach others, that is to say, to understand their doings, how depraved they are, and thus to be able to teach thy children, “Do not so and so because these are the religious observances of the heathens!” (Sifrei Devarim 170:3; Sanhedrin 68a.)
ר' עקיבא אומר אף הקורא בספרים החצונים ר"ל שלא להבין ולהורות אלא על דעת לילך באמונתם וכבר ידעת מהם שאין מאמינים אלא במה שהעיון נותן וההקש מחייב:
להתלמד עבד כדתניא כו' - ומיהו הקב"ה מדקדק עם הצדיקים כחוט השערה (יבמות דף קכא:) ואפילו להתלמד יש לחוש לכבוד הרב וקרא דלא תלמד לעשות במילי אחרניתא תוקמה כמו נטיעת קישואין דסנהדרין (דף סח.) ודמות צורת לבנה דר"ג (ר"ה דף כד.):
להתלמד עבד - פ"ה ומיהו הקב"ה מדקדק כו' ונראה שלא היה כתוב בספרו אלא מאי טעמא איענש הוגה בפרהסיא היה ולכך הוצרך לתת טעם אחר:
תנו רבנן מעשה בבתו של נחוניא חופר שיחין שנפלה לבור גדול באו והודיעו את רבי חנינא בן דוסא שעה ראשונה אמר להם שלום שניה אמר להם שלום שלישית אמר להם עלתה אמרו לה מי העלך אמרה להם זכר של רחלים נזדמן לי וזקן אחד מנהיגו אמרו לו נביא אתה אמר להם לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך אמרתי דבר שאותו צדיק מצטער בו יכשל בו זרעו אמר רבי אחא אף על פי כן מת בנו בצמא שנאמר (תהלים נ, ג) וסביביו נשערה מאד מלמד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מדקדק עם סביביו אפילו כחוט השערה ר' נחוניא אמר מהכא (תהלים פט, ח) אל נערץ בסוד קדושים רבה ונורא על כל סביביו אמר ר' חנינא כל האומר הקב"ה ותרן הוא יותרו חייו שנאמר (דברים לב, ד) הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט:
in the case where one dug the pit on his own property and then renounced ownership of the surrounding area. Consequently, the entire area except for the pit is now open to public passage. In this case, Rabbi Akiva maintains that one who digs a pit on his own property is also liable, not only when the pit is located in the public domain, as it is written: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34). Clearly, the Merciful One is referring to a pit that has an owner. Therefore, the owner of the pit pays even if it is located on private property. And Rabbi Yishmael maintains that “the owner of the pit” means that the one responsible for the hazard is liable even if he dug the pit in the public domain and then renounced ownership of it. But one who digs a pit on his own property is not liable. The Gemara asks: Rather, according to Rabba’s explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit on one’s property, that Rabbi Akiva states? According to him, one is liable for damage in all cases, including digging in the public domain. The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of compensation for damage caused. In that context, the Torah states: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34), indicating that even a pit owned on one’s private property renders one liable. And Rav Yosef said that one can explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva differently: With regard to one who dug a pit on his private property and then renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, everyone agrees that he is liable. What is the reason? Since the Merciful One states: “The owner of the pit,” it indicates that we are dealing with a pit that has an owner. When they disagree, it is in a case where the pit was dug in the public domain. Rabbi Yishmael maintains that one is also liable for a pit dug in the public domain, as it is written: “And if a man shall open a pit,” and: “If a man shall dig a pit” (Exodus 21:33), which raises the question: If he is liable for opening a pit by removing the cover of a pit that has already been dug, then is it not all the more so obvious that he should be liable for digging a new pit? Rather, the verse means that the responsibility for the pit comes to him by engaging in opening the pit and by engaging in digging the pit. Although he does not own the area itself, he is liable for creating a public hazard. And Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, holds that one is liable only in the case of a pit located on private property, where he renounced ownership of the property aside from the pit, and one cannot derive otherwise from any extraneous phrases. This is because these phrases are necessary, for if the Merciful One wrote only: “If a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33), I would say that it is specifically when one opens the covering of a pit that has already been dug that it is sufficient for him to place a covering on it to absolve himself of responsibility for damage it causes. This is the case where the Torah states: “And not cover it” (Exodus 21:33). But if one actually digs a pit, it would not be sufficient to place a covering on it, and one would not be exempt from damages unless he completely packs it. And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: “If a man shall dig,” I would say that it is specifically in a case of digging that a covering is required to exempt one from liability, because he performed an action of creating the pit. But for merely opening it, where one has not performed an action, say that he does not require a covering to absolve him of liability. Therefore, the Torah teaches us that he is liable for damage caused by a pit in both cases, and one should interpret the verse that states: “The owner of the pit” (Exodus 21:34), in its plain sense, i.e., that he is the owner of the pit because it is located on his private property. Accordingly, one would not be liable for a pit dug in the public domain. The Gemara asks: But rather, according to Rav Yosef’s explanation, what is meant by the clause: This is the case of Pit that is stated in the Torah, in reference to digging a pit in the public domain, that Rabbi Yishmael states? Isn’t one liable for any pit, including one dug on his own property? The Gemara answers: It means that this is the pit with which the verse initially introduces the subject of damage caused by Pit, as explained by Rabbi Yishmael above. Only afterward does it state: “The owner of the pit shall pay,” referring to a pit dug on one’s own property. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit whose hollow space is in the public domain and then opens its entrance into private property is exempt, and this is the halakha even though he does not have permission to do so. The reason he does not have permission to do so is that one may not create a hollow space under the public domain. One who digs pits, ditches, and caves on private property and then opens their entrances into the public domain is liable. In addition, one who digs pits on private property that is adjacent to the public domain but not actually located in the public domain itself, such as these people who dig foundations [ushin] for their houses or walls, is exempt. But Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems one liable even for damage caused by pits made to lay foundations, unless he builds a partition that is ten handbreadths high in front of the pits, or unless he distances them by four handbreadths from the area where pedestrians walk and from the area where animals walk. The Gemara infers: The reason for the exemption is that one digs for the purpose of foundations, which is the usual and accepted practice, but if he did not dig for the purpose of foundations, he is liable. Although he did so on his own property, he is nevertheless liable, since people walk there. The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Granted, according to Rabba, the first clause, where one is seemingly exempt for opening a pit onto private property even if he subsequently renounced ownership of the area, can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and the last clause can be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that one is liable for a pit dug on his own property if it is open to public traffic. But according to Rav Yosef’s explanation, granted, with regard to the last clause, all agree that this is the halakha. But with regard to the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit on his own property, in accordance with whose opinion is this? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva, since Rav Yosef explained that both of them maintain that one is liable for a pit on his own property, even if he subsequently renounces ownership of the area. The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: Everyone agrees with the entire passage. As for the first clause, which exempts one who digs a pit under the public domain and opens it onto his own property, it is referring to a case where one did not renounce ownership of either his property or his pit. This certainly is not included in the category of Pit with regard to damages, and the owner is therefore exempt. Rav Ashi said: Now that you have interpreted Rav Yosef’s explanation of the baraita as being in accordance with all opinions, then also according to Rabba, you are not required to establish it as a dispute between tanna’im. Rather, one can say that since the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who exempts one who renounces ownership of his property but not the pit, the last clause can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And it was previously inferred that the reason for the exemption when digging on one’s private property adjacent to the public domain is that one digs to lay foundations. But if it is not to lay foundations, one is liable. For instance, in a case where one widened the pit unnecessarily, extending it into the public domain, he has effectively dug a pit in the public domain itself. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who digs a pit on private property and opens it into the public domain is liable. But if he dug it on private property that was adjacent to the public domain, he is exempt. Granted, according to Rabba, this mishna is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who does not hold one liable for digging on his own property. But according to Rav Yosef, granted, the first clause works out well in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds one liable even for digging in the public domain, but whose opinion is the latter clause? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Yishmael nor that of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef could have said to you: The latter clause of this baraita is referring to one who digs to lay foundations, and therefore all agree with the ruling. § The Sages taught: If someone dug or opened a well and transferred it to the public for their use, he is exempt from damage caused by the well. If he dug or opened a well and did not transfer it to the public, he is liable. And this was the practice of Neḥunya the digger of pits, ditches, and caves, who would dig, open, and transfer them to the public so that there would be wells of water for public use. When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: This individual has fulfilled this halakha. The Gemara asks: Only this halakha and no more? Isn’t it well known that Neḥunya was a great man? Rather, say: He fulfilled even this halakha and did not forget to transfer the wells to the public. Having mentioned the deeds of Neḥunya, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Neḥunya the ditchdigger, where she fell into a large cistern and no one could extricate her from it. They came and informed Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa so that he would pray on her behalf. When the first hour had passed from the time of her fall, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour, he said to them: She has ascended from the well, and indeed this was the case. They said to her: Who brought you up out of the well? She said to them: A male sheep, i.e., a ram, happened to come to me, and a certain old man, i.e., Abraham, was leading it, and he pulled me out. They said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa: Are you a prophet? How did you know she had ascended? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa said to them: “I am no prophet, neither am I a prophet’s son” (Amos 7:14), but this is what I said to myself: Shall the offspring of Neḥunya stumble by means of the very matter which distressed that righteous man? Rabbi Aḥa says: Although Neḥunya ensured that others would have water, even so, his son died of thirst, fulfilling that which is stated: “And around Him it storms [nisara] mightily” (Psalms 50:3). This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is scrupulous with those around Him, i.e., the righteous, even to the extent of a hairsbreadth [hasa’ara], so that even minor transgressions elicit a severe punishment. Rabbi Neḥunya says: The same idea may be learned from here, in the following verse: “A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared by all those that surround Him” (Psalms 89:8), indicating that God is most careful and exacting with those that surround Him, i.e., the righteous. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving [vateran] of transgressions, his life will be relinquished [yivatru], as it is stated: “The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). In other words, God does not waive heavenly justice. Rabbi Ḥana says, and some say that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: What is the meaning of that which is written