Red Pill Parshas Vayayra4

And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: Three people who were walking on the road should not walk in single file but should walk with the teacher in the middle, the greater of the students on his right, and the lesser of them to his left. And so too do we find with the three ministering angels who came to Abraham: Michael, the greatest of the three, was in the middle, Gabriel was to his right, and Raphael was to his left. Apparently, a student walks to the right of his teacher.

We learned in the mishna: One may move baskets of produce due to the guests and in order to prevent the suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hospitality toward guests is as great as rising early to go to the study hall, as the mishna equates them and teaches: Due to the guests and due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. And Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says: Hospitality toward guests is greater than rising early to the study hall, as it teaches: Due to the guests, and only afterward: And due to suspension of Torah study in the study hall. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said on a related note: Hospitality toward guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as when Abraham invited his guests it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant” (Genesis 18:3). Abraham requested that God, the Divine Presence, wait for him while he tended to his guests appropriately. Rabbi Elazar said: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like that of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood people is such that a less significant person is unable to say to a more significant person: Wait until I come to you, while with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, it is written: “And he said: Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please pass not from Your servant.” Abraham requested that God wait for him due to his guests.

The ornamentation of the scribes are expressions that the scribes understood in a manner that differs slightly from its plain understanding. For example: “Then [aḥar] go on” (Genesis 18:5); “then [aḥar] she will go” (Genesis 24:55); “afterward [aḥar] you will be gathered” (Numbers 31:2); “the singers go before, the minstrels follow after [aḥar]” (Psalms 68:26); “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains” (Psalms 36:7).

The verse states: “Make ready quickly three measures of flour, fine flour” (Genesis 18:6). The Gemara questions the apparent redundancy. It is written: “Flour,” and it is also written: “Fine flour.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here we learn that a woman is more stingy with guests than a man. Sarah wanted to use merely flour, and Abraham persuaded her to use fine flour.

One who is not an established prayer leader must decline a bit before he goes before the ark, but not too much; rather, the first time he should decline, and when they ask him again he should ready himself as if he wants to go to [lead], and on the third time he should stand [and go before the ark]. If the one who told him to go before the ark is an important person, he should not decline at all.

The Gemara returns to discuss the verse in Genesis: “And Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good” (Genesis 18:7). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: “A calf” is one; “tender” indicates an additional one, i.e., two; “and good” indicates another one, for a total of three calves. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the verse is referring to only one calf, as people say when describing a single item that it is tender and good?

The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: Tender, good. What is the significance of the term “and good,” which indicates an addition? Conclude from this that the verse is stated for the purpose of an exposition and is referring to more than one calf. The Gemara challenges: But one can still say there were only two calves. The Gemara answers: From the fact that the word “good” is written for an exposition, to include an additional calf, it may be inferred that the term “tender” is also written for an exposition and indicates yet another calf.

Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a rabbi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at the wedding of Rabban Gamliel’s son. And Rabban Gamliel, who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, was standing over them and serving them drinks. He gave the cup to Rabbi Eliezer and he would not accept it; he gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? We sit and the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stands over us and serves us drinks? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We found one greater than him who served his guests, as our forefather Abraham was greater than him and he served his guests. Abraham was the greatest man of his generation and it is written about him: “And he stood over them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). And lest you say: His guests appeared to him as ministering angels, and that is why he honored them, in fact they appeared to him only as Arabs. And if so, should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? Rabbi Tzadok said to them: For how long will you ignore the honor due to the Omnipresent, and deal with the honor of people? You could cite a proof from God Himself. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes the winds blow, and raises the clouds, and brings the rain, and causes the earth to sprout, and sets a table before each and every creature. And should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? This discussion indicates that even a Nasi may forgo the honor due him.

The next verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9). The Gemara explains that this verse serves to inform us that Sarah, our foremother, was a modest woman, as she remained inside while the guests were present. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it is Rabbi Yitzḥak who says: The ministering angels, who visited Abraham in the guise of travelers, knew that Sarah, our foremother, was inside the tent. Rather, what was the purpose of their eliciting Abraham’s response: In the tent? It was in order to endear her to her husband, by accentuating Sarah’s modesty.

The Gemara asks: In any case, the unanswered question raised by Doeg is difficult. The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained the matter based on the verse: “The king’s daughter is all glorious within” (Psalms 45:14), which indicates that it is unbefitting for a woman to venture outside at all, and therefore the Ammonite women would not have been expected to go forth to meet the Jewish women. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who said: The verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9), which teaches that it is praiseworthy for a woman to remain inside her home.

Now the LORD had said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,

Ravina said to one of the Sages who would organize aggadic statements before him: From where is this matter that the Sages stated: The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing, derived? He said to him: As it is written explicitly in the book of Proverbs: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing.” He then asked him: From where in the Torah do we derive this? He said to him: As it is written: “And God said: Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing?” (Genesis 18:17). And as soon as Abraham’s name is mentioned, it is written: “And Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation” (Genesis 18:18), although there is no clear connection to the previous verse. Apparently, once the name of a righteous person is mentioned, it is followed directly by praise of the individual. That is the Torah source for the statement that the mention of the righteous is for blessing.

David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness.
They are merciful, as it is written: “And He will give you mercy, and have mercy upon you and multiply you” (Deuteronomy 13:18); not only will God have mercy upon you, but He will bestow the attribute of mercy upon you.
They are shamefaced, as it is written: “And that His fear shall be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17), and the fear that is on one’s face is his shame.
They perform acts of kindness, as it is written: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to practice righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19), i.e., to perform acts of kindness.
Whoever has these three distinguishing marks is fit to cleave to this nation. Those who lack these qualities, however, are unfit to be part of the Jewish people. When David saw the cruelty of the Gibeonites, he decreed that they may never enter into the congregation of Israel.

There was a young woman who would take bread out to the poor people in a pitcher so the people of Sodom would not see it. The matter was revealed, and they smeared her with honey and positioned her on the wall of the city, and the hornets came and consumed her. And that is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord said: Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great [rabba]” (Genesis 18:20). And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabba is an allusion to the matter of the young woman [riva] who was killed for her act of kindness. It is due to that sin that the fate of the people of Sodom was sealed.

§ The Gemara continues discussing the manner in which God metes out punishment. Rabbi Abba Bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written as part of Abraham’s prayer to God, when God informed him that He was going to destroy Sodom: “That be far [ḥalila] from You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked” (Genesis 18:25)? This is what Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is a sacrilege [ḥullin] for You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked.

§ The Gemara continues discussing the manner in which God metes out punishment. Rabbi Abba Bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written as part of Abraham’s prayer to God, when God informed him that He was going to destroy Sodom: “That be far [ḥalila] from You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked” (Genesis 18:25)? This is what Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is a sacrilege [ḥullin] for You to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked. The Gemara asks: And does God not act in this manner? But isn’t it written: “And I will cut off from You the righteous and the wicked” (Ezekiel 21:8)? The Gemara answers: There the verse is referring to a righteous person who is not completely righteous, and he will therefore be destroyed along with the wicked. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But is it true that one who is completely righteous cannot be destroyed along with the wicked? But isn’t it written in a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple that God says to the destroyers: “And begin at My Sanctuary [mimmikdashi]” (Ezekiel 9:6); and Rav Yosef teaches: Do not read the word as “mimmikdashi,” but rather read it as mimmekudashai, those sanctified to Me. He explains: These are people who observed the Torah in its entirety, from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet alef through its final letter tav. These people observed every mitzva in the Torah, and yet they were destroyed along with the wicked. The Gemara answers the difficulty: There too, since they had the power to protest against the wicked and prevent them from sinning and they did not protest, they are considered as righteous people who are not completely righteous.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it. And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised. But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not.

And Rava further taught: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham said: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27), his children merited two mitzvot: The ashes of the red heifer (see Numbers, chapter 19) and the dust of the sota.

Additionally, Rava says: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring dust for the sota? It is because if she merits to be proven faith-ful after drinking the water of the sota, a child like our Patriarch Abraham will emerge from her, as it is written with regard to Abraham that he said: “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). But if she does not merit to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the sota, she shall die and return to her dust, the soil from which mankind was formed.

I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).

The Gemara continues: Who are these three men? They are the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael: Michael, who came to announce to Sarah that she was to give birth to a son; Raphael, who came to heal Abraham after his circumcision; and Gabriel, who went to overturn Sodom. The Gemara asks: But it is written: “And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening” (Genesis 19:1). The Gemara answers that Michael went along with Gabriel to Sodom to save Lot. The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, as it is written: “And he overturned those cities” (Genesis 19:25), and it is not written: They overturned those cities. Conclude from it that only one angel overturned Sodom.

With regard to the same issue, Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then I said: Behold, I have come; in the scroll of a book it is written about me” (Psalms 40:8)? David said: I had said that I have come only now; my life was created only recently, at the time of my birth. But I did not know that it was already written about me in the scroll of a book, that an ancient text already hints at my existence. There, with regard to the daughters of Lot, it is written: “And your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15), and here, with regard to David, it is written: “I have found David, My servant; I have anointed him with My holy oil” (Psalms 89:21). The lost article that was found among the daughters of Lot, the mothers of Ammon and Moab, is David and his royal house.

The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: The Master said that from dawn until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil. From where do we derive this? As it is written: “And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15), and it is written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar” (Genesis 19:23). Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and sunrise, and Rabbi Ḥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it is a distance of five mil. This serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five mil between dawn and sunrise.

All names that could be understood as the name of God that are stated in the Torah with regard to Lot are non-sacred and are referring to angels, except for this one, which is sacred, as it is stated: “And Lot said to them: Please, not so Adonai. Behold your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have magnified Your mercy that You have performed for me by saving my life” (Genesis 19:18–19). It is apparent from the context that Lot is addressing He Who has the capacity to kill and to vivify; that is the Holy One, Blessed be He.

With regard to the verse: “It is nothing to you, all you who pass by” (Lamentations 1:12), Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From here there is a source from the Torah for complaint, i.e., it is appropriate for one to make his suffering public so that others will have compassion for him. With regard to the phrase “all you who pass by,” Rav Amram says that Rav says that it is as though Jerusalem said: They have rendered me like a city of those who violate the most fundamental precepts of law and morality, as, with regard to Sodom, it is written: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven” (Genesis 19:24), while with regard to Jerusalem, it is written: “From above He has sent fire into my bones, and it prevails against them” (Lamentations 1:13). In both cities, fire rained down from Heaven. And it is written: “For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom” (Lamentations 4:6).

The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: It is written: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). The heretic raised the question: It should have stated: From Him out of heaven. A certain launderer said to Rabbi Yishmael: Leave him be; I will respond to him. This is as it is written: “And Lemech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, hearken to my speech” (Genesis 4:23). One can raise the question: It should have been written: My wives, and not: “Wives of Lemech.” Rather, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Here too, it is the style of the verse to speak in this manner. Rabbi Yishmael said to the launderer: From where did you hear this interpretation? The launderer said to him: I heard it at the lecture of Rabbi Meir.

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Abraham instituted the morning prayer, as it is stated when Abraham came to look out over Sodom the day after he had prayed on its behalf: “And Abraham rose early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord” (Genesis 19:27), and from the context as well as the language utilized in the verse, the verb standing means nothing other than prayer, as this language is used to describe Pinehas’ prayer after the plague, as it is stated: “And Pinehas stood up and prayed and the plague ended” (Psalms 106:30). Clearly, Abraham was accustomed to stand in prayer in the morning.

Rav Yehuda said to Rabba bar Rav Yitzḥak: I will explain to you the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The verse states: “And behold, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace” (Genesis 19:28), and a furnace does not release smoke until the fire takes hold of the majority of the fuel. Rabbi Yoḥanan derived from this verse that the majority of the handful must be consumed by the fire, since the priests are instructed to make the handful smoke, as it is written: “And the priest shall make the memorial part thereof smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 2:2).

The Gemara asks: But the baraita teaches that for all of these one must give thanks and offer praise? The Gemara answers: The language of the baraita should be emended and teach: Over Lot and his wife one recites two blessings. Over his wife he recites: Blessed…the true Judge, and on Lot he recites: Blessed…Who remembers the righteous. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the story of Lot it is possible to learn that even during a time of wrath of the Holy One, Blessed be He, He remembers the righteous, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt” (Genesis 19:29).

The Gemara asks: But Lot was forced to participate in the sexual intercourse, as he was asleep at the time; how can he be considered a sinner? The Gemara answers that this is as a Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rav Ḥoni: Why is there a dot in a Torah scroll over the letter vav of the word “uvekumah,” with regard to Lot’s elder daughter, in the verse: “And he did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvekumah]” (Genesis 19:33)? This dot serves to say that when she lay down he did not know; however, when she arose he knew what she had done, as he later understood what had happened.

That night they made their father drink wine, and the older one went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

The older one bore a son and named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.

And we answered his question from this amoraic statement: When a woman marries a man, she ascends with him to his socioeconomic status, if it is higher than hers, but she does not descend with him if his status is lower. Consequently, if his family is not accustomed to nurse, she is not obligated to nurse either. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is derived from: “She is a man’s wife” (Genesis 20:3). The Gemara explains: The word used here for “wife [be’ula]” hints through similar spelling that she ascends in status with the ascension [aliya] of her husband but does not descend with the descent of her husband. Rabbi Elazar said: There is a hint to this principle from here: “As she was the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), which indicates that she was given to her husband for living with him, but was not given to suffer pain with him.

§ The mishna teaches that a woman can be betrothed through sexual intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba’al] by means of sexual intercourse [be’ila]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.

MISHNA: Despite the fact that the assailant who caused damage gives to the victim all of the required payments for the injury, his transgression is not forgiven for him in the heavenly court until he requests forgiveness from the victim, as it is stated that God told Abimelech after he had taken Sarah from Abraham: “Now therefore restore the wife of the man; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you, and you shall live” (Genesis 20:7). And from where is it derived that if the victim does not forgive him that he is cruel? As it is stated: “And Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bore children” (Genesis 20:17).

GEMARA: The Sages taught: All these sums that in the previous mishna they said one is liable to pay for humiliating another are the compensation for his humiliation, for which there is a set amount. But for the victim’s pain caused by the assailant, even if the assailant brings as offerings all the rams of Nebaioth (see Isaiah 60:7) that are in the world, which are of the best quality, his transgression is not forgiven for him in the heavenly court until he requests forgiveness from the victim, as it is stated: “Restore the wife of the man; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you” (Genesis 20:7).

The LORD took note of Sarah as He had promised, and the LORD did for Sarah as He had spoken.

§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to circumcise his son. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac” (Genesis 21:4). The Gemara comments: And in a case where one’s father did not circumcise him the court is obligated to circumcise him, i.e., if this obligation is not fulfilled by the father it applies to the community as a whole, as it is written: “Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), in the form of a general mitzva that does not apply only to the father. And in a case where the court did not circumcise him the son is obligated to circumcise himself when he reaches adulthood, as it is written: “And the uncircumcised male, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Genesis 17:14).

In reference to Sarah having given birth to Isaac, the verse states: “And she said: Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah should nurse children?” (Genesis 21:7). The Gemara asks: How many children did Sarah nurse? Why does the verse use the plural form when she had only one child? Rabbi Levi says: That day when Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he prepared a great celebratory feast. All of the nations of the world were gossiping and saying to each other: See this old man and old woman who brought a foundling from the market and are saying: He is our son, and moreover they are making a great feast to bolster their claim.

What did Abraham, our forefather, do? He went and invited all of the great men of that generation, and Sarah, our foremother, invited their wives. Each and every one of the wives brought her child with her but did not bring her wet nurse. And a miracle occurred to Sarah, our foremother, and her breasts were opened like two springs, and she nursed all of these children. And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Isaac’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Abraham. Everyone exclaimed and said: “Abraham fathered Isaac” (Genesis 25:19).

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi doubles certain matters in hallel. Rabbi Elazar ben Perata added matters to hallel. The Gemara asks: What did he add? Certainly this cannot mean that Rabbi Elazar ben Perata added statements of his own to hallel. Abaye said: He added repetitions, i.e., he repeated other verses, from “I will give thanks to You” and onward. From that point on, he repeated each verse. In connection to its discussion of hallel, the Gemara cites a statement that Rav Avira taught. Sometimes he said this exposition citing Rav Ami, and sometimes he said it citing Rav Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the child grew and was weaned [vayiggamal], and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned” (Genesis 21:8)? In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will prepare a feast for the righteous on the day that He extends [sheyigmol] His mercy to the descendants of Isaac. After they eat and drink, the celebrants will give Abraham our father a cup of blessing to recite the blessing, as he is the first of our forefathers. And Abraham will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I am blemished, for the wicked Ishmael came from me. Abraham will say to Isaac: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Isaac will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as the wicked Esau came from me. Isaac will say to Jacob: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Jacob will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I married two sisters, Rachel and Leah, in their lifetimes, and in the future the Torah forbade them to me. Although at the time it was not prohibited to wed two sisters, this practice would eventually be considered a serious transgression. Jacob will say to Moses: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Moses will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I did not merit to enter Eretz Yisrael, neither in my life nor in my death. Moses will say to Joshua: Take the cup and recite the blessing. Joshua will say to them: I will not recite the blessing, as I did not merit to have a son. The proof for this is that it is written: “Joshua the son of Nun” (Numbers 14:6), and in the genealogical list of Ephraim it states: “Nun his son, Joshua his son” (I Chronicles 7:27). Since the verse does not mention any children of Joshua, evidently he had no sons. Joshua will say to David: Take the cup and recite the blessing. David will say to them: I will recite the blessing, and it is fitting for me to recite the blessing, as it is stated: “I will lift up the cup of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord” (Psalms 116:13).

§ The Gemara asks with regard to the prophetesses recorded in the baraita: Who were the seven prophetesses? The Gemara answers: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. The Gemara offers textual support: Sarah, as it is written: “Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” (Genesis 11:29). And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Iscah is in fact Sarah. And why was she called Iscah? For she saw [sakhta] by means of divine inspiration, as it is stated: “In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice” (Genesis 21:12). Alternatively, Sarah was also called Iscah, for all gazed [sokhin] upon her beauty.

GEMARA: Concerning the mishna’s ruling that the one who takes such a vow is permitted to derive benefit from the nations of the world, the Gemara asks: But isn’t there Ishmael and his descendants, who are also Abraham’s offspring? Why isn’t deriving benefit from them forbidden as well? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to Abraham: “For in Isaac shall seed be called to you” (Genesis 21:12), which demonstrates that the descendants of Ishmael are not termed the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Esau and his descendants; they are also offspring of Abraham, since they are descendants of Isaac? The Gemara answers that the words “in Isaac” mean that some of Isaac’s descendants, i.e., the children of Jacob, are included in the offspring of Abraham, but not all the descendants of Isaac.

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours” (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael’s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds at the time of his judgment, and not according to his future deeds, as it is stated with regard to Ishmael: “For God has heard the voice of the lad where he is” (Genesis 21:17). Although Ishmael and his descendants would act wickedly in the future, his prayer was heard and answered because he was innocent at the time.

The Gemara discusses Abraham’s house: It is written: “And he planted an eshel in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God” (Genesis 21:33). Reish Lakish says: This teaches that Abraham made an orchard and planted in it all kinds of sweet things.

The verse states earlier: “And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned tail to tail, and put a torch in the midst between every two tails” (Judges 15:4). The Gemara asks: What is different about foxes than any other animal, that he chose them for this purpose? Rabbi Aivu bar Nagdi says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Samson said: Let the animal that goes in reverse when it tries to escape, i.e., the fox, come and exact punishment from the Philistines, who reneged on their oath that Abimelech swore to Abraham.

The Gemara cites an alternative explanation of the verse: “And it came to pass after these matters that God tried Abraham” (Genesis 22:1). Rabbi Levi says: This means after the statement of Ishmael to Isaac, during an exchange between them described in the verse: “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar…mocking” (Genesis 21:9). Ishmael said to Isaac: I am greater than you in the fulfillment of mitzvot, as you were circumcised at the age of eight days, without your knowledge and without your consent, and I was circumcised at the age of thirteen years, with both my knowledge and my consent. Isaac said to Ishmael: And do you provoke me with one organ? If the Holy One, Blessed be He, were to say to me: Sacrifice yourself before Me, I would sacrifice myself. Immediately, God tried Abraham, to confirm that Isaac was sincere in his offer to give his life.

The Torah continues: “And He said: Take, please [na], your son” (Genesis 22:2). Rabbi Shimon bar Abba says: The word na is nothing other than an expression of entreaty. Why did God request rather than command that Abraham take his son? The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who confronted many wars. And he had one warrior fighting for him, and he overcame his enemies. Over time, there was a fierce war confronting him. The king said to his warrior: I entreat you, stand firm for me in this war, so that others will not say: There is no substance in the first victories, and you are not a true warrior. Likewise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, also said to Abraham: I have tried you with several ordeals, and you have withstood them all. Now, stand firm in this ordeal for Me, so that others will not say: There is no substance in the first ordeals.

And lest you say that this halakha is in accordance with the principle that the vigilant are early in the performance of mitzvot, let us search in the morning. The principle: The vigilant are early in the performance of mitzvot, is derived, as it is written: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3). And it was taught in a baraita: The entire day is suitable for performance of the mitzva of circumcision; however, the vigilant are early in the performance of mitzvot, and circumcise in the morning. As it is stated with regard to the binding of Isaac: “And Abraham arose early in the morning” (Genesis 22:3) after hearing God’s command. This indicates that Abraham arose early in his eagerness to perform God’s commandment.

Rabbi Abbahu said that the source is from here: “And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went to the place that God had told him” (Genesis 22:3). The fact that Abraham waited until morning and did not set off at night, even though others were traveling with him, indicates that a Torah scholar should not go out at night at all, and certainly not alone.

Rav said: Everyone agrees with regard to a Canaanite slave, that he does not have lineage, as it is written that Abraham said to his slaves: “Remain here with the donkey” (Genesis 22:5). This verse is interpreted to mean that they are a nation comparable to a donkey, which has no lineage. The Gemara raises an objection based upon a verse pertaining to Jonathan’s Canaanite slave: “And Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants” (II Samuel 9:10), which indicates that a slave’s sons are in fact considered his sons. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is like the expression: A bullock, son of a bull. The word son in this context merely denotes progeny, not lineage.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Abba bar Memel do with this verse “He gives breath to the people upon it”? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which was taught by Rabbi Abbahu. As Rabbi Abbahu said: Even a Canaanite maidservant in Eretz Yisrael is assured a place in the World-to-Come. It is written here: “To the people [la’am] upon it,” and it is written there: “Abide you here with [im] the donkey” (Genesis 22:5). This verse in Genesis is traditionally interpreted to mean: A people [am] that is similar to a donkey, from which it may be inferred that even the members of this people merit a share in the world to come.

§ The mishna teaches: And in any case where a woman cannot join in betrothal with him or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a Canaanite maidservant is ineffective? Rav Huna says: The verse states that Abraham commanded his slaves: “You abide here with [im] the donkey” (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to a nation [am] similar to a donkey; just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with a Canaanite maidservant;

Rav Pappa says: In the case of an ox that gored a Canaanite maidservant, and her offspring emerged due to miscarriage, the owner pays compensation for miscarried offspring. What is the reason? The ox injured a mere pregnant donkey. With regard to the matter of compensation for offspring, who would be the property of the master were they to be born, a Canaanite slave is considered property of the master. As the verse states that Abraham addressed Eliezer, who was a Canaanite, by saying: “You remain here with [im] the donkey” (Genesis 22:5), on which the Sages expound that he was alluding to the idea that Eliezer is of a people [am] that is similar to a donkey. Therefore, the case of an ox goring a Canaanite maidservant is not included in the Torah’s exemption from paying compensation for miscarried offspring.

This is as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that a covenant is made with the lips, and that one’s speech has the power to change events? For it is stated: “And Abraham said to his young men: Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go onward; and we will worship, and we will come back to you” (Genesis 22:5). Abraham said this even though he thought that he was going to sacrifice his son as an offering and that Isaac would not be returning, yet this had an influence and they both came back.

Rather, the term: Utensil, must be stated of a knife, as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son” (Genesis 22:13).

§ Rav sat behind Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed specifically with a blade that is detached? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10). Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is he saying? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: He is saying an incorrect reason, comparable to the letter vav that is written on the rough surface of a tree trunk [a’ufta]. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say a verse as proof for his statement? The Gemara answers: The verse teaches us the diligence of Abraham, who had a knife prepared to slaughter Isaac. It does not teach any halakha concerning ritual slaughter.

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:1) that Rabbi Meir says: It is stated with regard to Job that he was “God-fearing” (Job 1:1), and it is stated with regard to Abraham that he was “God-fearing” (Genesis 22:12). Just as the description “God-fearing,” which is stated with regard to Abraham, is referring to Abraham’s fearing God out of love, so too, the description “God-fearing” that is stated with regard to Job indicates that Job feared God out of love.

“And the Lord said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8). About this Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That which is stated about Job is greater than that which is stated about Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), with regard to Job it is written: “A perfect and an upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8).

Rabbi Abba says: The praise that is stated with regard to Obadiah is greater than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham the verse states: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), and the term “greatly” is not written, and about Obadiah the term “greatly” is written.

It is also stated there: “The Lord repented Him of the evil and said to the angel that destroyed the many [rav] people: It is enough; now stay your hand” (II Samuel 24:16). Explaining the meaning of the word rav, Rabbi Elazar said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel: Take for me a great one [rav] from among them, who is worthy of defraying several of Israel’s debts. As a result, at that moment Avishai ben Tzeruya, who was equivalent to the majority of the Sanhedrin, died. His death atoned for the entire nation. On a parallel note, it is said: “The Lord beheld, and He repented him of the evil” (I Chronicles 21:15). The Gemara asks: What did the Lord behold? Rav said: He saw and remembered the patriarch, Jacob, about whom the term seeing is used: “And Jacob said when he saw them [ra’am]: This is God’s camp” (Genesis 32:3). And Shmuel said: He saw and remembered Isaac’s ashes, as it is said in the portion of the binding of Isaac: “God will provide [yireh] Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering” (Genesis 22:8). Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: He saw the money of atonement that Israel gave when they were counted during the Exodus from Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for your souls” (Exodus 30:16). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He saw the Temple, as it is written: “On the mount where the Lord is seen [yera’e]” (Genesis 22:14).

Sarah’s lifetime—the span of Sarah’s life—came to one hundred and twenty-seven years. Sarah died in Kiriath-arba—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan; and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her.

Sarah died in Kiriath-arba—now Hebron—in the land of Canaan; and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the value of coins. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Any silver shekel that is stated in the Torah but which is unspecified is referring to one sela. Additionally, any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Prophets is a silver litra, weighing twenty-five sela, and any unspecified silver shekel mentioned in the Writings is in centenaria [kintarin], silver weighing one hundred sela. This is the case throughout the Bible except for the silver of Ephron, where even though it is written in the Torah: “Shekels of silver,” without specification, it is in centenaria, as it is written: “Four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16). This means that the silver was acceptable as shekels everywhere, and there is a place where they call a centenarius a shekel.

From where do we derive this principle that the wicked say much and do not do even a little? We derive it from Ephron. Initially, it is written that Ephron said to Abraham: “A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between me and you?” (Genesis 23:15). And ultimately it is written: “And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), i.e., shekels that could be used in any location. This teaches that not only did Ephron take shekels from Abraham, he took from him only centenaria [kantarei], i.e., superior coins, as there is a place where they call a shekel a centenarius.

Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi, for he was settled in the region of the Negeb.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are not included in the sale of a field, derived? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: As the verse states: “So the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave that was within it, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the boundaries around, were established for Abraham as a possession” (Genesis 23:17–18). This teaches that anything that requires a boundary around it, as it does not have natural demarcations, is included in the sale of a field. This excludes these trees, i.e., the grafted carob and the sycamore trunk, which do not require a boundary around them, as they stand out individually on their own. Rav Mesharshiyya says: From here there is a source that the acquisition of the actual boundaries in a sale is from the Torah.

When they were in Egypt there was a yeshiva with them, as it is stated: “Go and gather the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 3:16), indicating that there were Sages among them who studied Torah. And similarly, when they were in the desert, there was a yeshiva with them, as it is stated: “Gather for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel” (Numbers 11:16). Abraham our Patriarch was himself an Elder and would sit in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, advanced in years” (Genesis 24:1). From the apparent redundancy of the terms old and advanced in years, it is derived that old means that he was a wise Elder and prominent in Torah, and advanced in years means that he was elderly. Similarly, Isaac our Patriarch was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And it came to pass when Isaac was old and his eyes were dim” (Genesis 27:1). Similarly, Jacob our Patriarch was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Israel’s eyes were heavy with age” (Genesis 48:10).

The Gemara comments that this disagreement is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states: “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about what bakkol means. Rabbi Meir says: The blessing is that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: On the contrary, the blessing was that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [itztagninut] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of bakkol, that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung this stone from the sphere of the sun, which from that point on brought healing to the sick. Abaye said: This explains the adage that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted.

Rav Avira interpreted the following verse homiletically: “They are exalted for a little while, and they are gone; yes, they are brought low, they are gathered in as all others, and wither as the tops of the husks” (Job 24:24). There were times when he said this interpretation in the name of Rav Asi and there were times when he said it in the name of Rav Ami: Any person who has arrogance within him will ultimately be diminished in standing, as it is stated in the phrase: “They are exalted for a little while,” indicating that one who raises himself above others will be exalted only briefly. And lest you say that even if he is diminished he will still exist in this world and live a full life, the verse states: “And they are gone,” indicating that they die before their time. He continues the interpretation: But if he repents from his arrogance, he is gathered in death at his proper time like Abraham our forefather, as it is stated: “Yes, they are brought low, they are gathered in as all [kakkol] others” (Job 24:24), indicating that when he repents from his arrogance he will die like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written about them that they were blessed with the term “all,” as in the verse above. With regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1). With regard to Isaac, the verse states: “And I have eaten of all [mikkol]” (Genesis 27:33). With regard to Jacob, the verse states: “And because I have all [khol]” (Genesis 33:11). And if one does not repent, then, the verse in Job continues: “And wither like the tops of the husk.”

Eliezer, servant of Abraham, was an Elder and sat in yeshiva, as it is stated: “And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his household, who ruled over all he had” (Genesis 24:2). Rabbi Elazar said: The verse means that he had mastery over the Torah of his master, having gained proficiency in all of the Torah of Abraham. That is the meaning of the verse: “He is Damascus [Dammesek] Eliezer” (Genesis 15:2). Rabbi Elazar said: The word Dammesek is a contraction of he who draws [doleh] and gives drink [mashke] to others from his master’s Torah.

Having discussed the halakhot of a field with regard to consecration and sales, the Gemara asks: What is the halakha here, with regard to measuring a field to see if it fulfills the condition stipulated by one who betroths a woman, if it contains large crevices that are not filled with water? Do we compare it to the halakha of consecrated property and include these places, or do we compare it to the halakha of a sale, which means that they are not included? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that we compare it to the case of consecrated property, as the husband can say to her: I will go to the trouble of sowing and bringing the produce from the lower or higher areas as well. Although the labor requires additional effort, he does possess a beit kor of land. MISHNA: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: “And Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession” (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: “But if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 32:30).

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: “And take a wife for my son” (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her family’s wishes. The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: “If the woman is not willing to follow you” (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

As a preamble to the statement of Rabbi Berekhya, below, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Three people entreated God in an unreasonable manner, i.e., in situations where their requests might have received an unfavorable answer. To two of them God responded reasonably, with a favorable response to their requests, and to one God responded unreasonably, i.e., unfavorably, in a manner befitting the unreasonable request. And they are: Eliezer, servant of Abraham; Saul, son of Kish; and Jephthah the Gileadite. The Gemara clarifies each of these cases in turn: With regard to Eliezer, servant of Abraham, he made a request when he prayed beside the well, as it is written: “That the maiden to whom I shall say: Please let down your pitcher that I may drink; and she shall say: Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink; that she be the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac” (Genesis 24:14). Eliezer entreated God unreasonably, as his request allowed for the possibility that she might even be lame or even blind, and yet he had promised to take her to Isaac. Nevertheless, God responded to him reasonably and the eminently suitable Rebecca happened to come to him. With regard to Saul, son of Kish, he made an offer when Goliath the Philistine challenged the Jews, as it is written: “And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter” (I Samuel 17:25). The man who killed Goliath might even have been a slave or a mamzer, one born from an incestuous or adulterous union, who would be unfit to marry his daughter. Nevertheless, God responded to him reasonably and David happened to come to him. By contrast, there is the case of Jephthah the Gileadite. Upon leaving for battle he issued a statement, as it is written: “Then it shall be that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace…it shall be to the Lord and I will bring it up for a burnt-offering” (Judges 11:31). This might even have been an impure, non-kosher animal, which he had committed himself to sacrifice. In this instance, God responded to him unreasonably, and his daughter happened to come to him.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The High Priest must marry a virgin, and the term virgin refers only to a maiden. And a verse similarly states: “And the maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her” (Genesis 24:16).

MISHNA: One who carries out undiluted wine from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa is liable only for a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted in a cup. Pure wine was diluted with water. The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure suitable to be diluted for a significant cup of wine. The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed in one gulp. The measure that determines liability for carrying out honey is equivalent to that which is used to place on a sore caused by chafing. The measure that determines liability for carrying out oil is equivalent to that which is used to spread on a small limb. The measure that determines liability for carrying out water is equivalent to that which is used to rub and spread on an eye bandage. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all waste water is a quarter of a log. Rabbi Shimon says: The measure that determines liability for all liquids is a quarter of a log. He further stated: And all these measures were only stated with regard to those who store them. One indicates that he considers these liquids significant by storing them. One is only liable for carrying out an object that is significant to him. Others, for whom these measures are insignificant, are not liable for carrying them out.

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed [kedei gemia] in one gulp. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the correct version of the mishna: Kedei gemia with an alef or kedei gemia with an ayin? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It should be written with an alef as we find in the Torah: “And he said: Give me to swallow [hagmi’ini with an alef ] please, a little water from your jug” (Genesis 24:17).

..."And the servant ran towards her" (Genesis 24:17) - towards her good deeds. "And he said 'Please, let me sip a little water from your jar.'” - just one sip. "And the man stood gazing at her"(Genesis 24:21) - Rabbi Yochanan from Tzipporin said: blinking and looking at her. "He took" - Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Yosef said: he had a precious stone with him, and it weighted a beka [beka = half a shekel or 6 grams]. "Two gold bands for her arms" (Genesis 24:22) - representing the two tablets. "Ten in weight" - representing the Ten Sayings. "He said: Whose daughter are you? Please tell me [nah li] (Genesis 24:24) - one single night [linah]. "She replied, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor... also room to spend a night.” (Genesis 24:25) - many nights. The man bowed, and prostrated to the LORD (Genesis 24:26) - from here [we learn] that we give thanks for good news. - “Blessed be the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld His steadfast faithfulness”- from your easing the way for me I knew. "From You setting me on the way to the house of the brothers of my master." (Genesis 24:27)

There is another story of a young woman who was kidnapped, and two pious men went to pay her ransom. One of them was arrested and accused of robbery and sent to prison. Every day, his wife would bring him bread and water. One day, he said to her: Go to my friend [the other pious man] and tell him that I am being held in prison [(and accused of soliciting a prostitute), while he just sits in his house and does nothing to help the young woman. His wife replied: It’s bad enough that you are being held in prison, but now you also engage in this kind of foolishness?] He said to her: Please, just go and say this to him. So she went and related this to his friend. What did the friend do? He went and brought silver and gold, and other men with him, and got them both released. When the first man got out, he said: Let me sleep next to the young woman in bed, but with her clothes on. In the morning, he said to them: Now immerse me in water, and then immerse her in water. They did so. Then he said to them: What did you suspect during my immersion? They said to him: We said to ourselves, all that time that he was in prison, he was hungry and thirsty, and now he is out in the fresh air…so this all warmed up your flesh and you were overstimulated, so perhaps you had an ejaculation [and that is why you had to immerse]. He said: And what did you suspect during her immersion? They said to him: After all that time that she was among the idolaters, perhaps she ate and drank from their foods, and now you were telling us to immerse her so that she would be purified. He said to them: That is in fact just what happened, and you, who have judged me favorably, will be judged favorably by the Omnipresent God.
Just as the early righteous people were pious, so too were their animals. They say that Abraham’s camels would not go into a house that had idols in it, as it says (Genesis 24:31), “I have cleared the house, and made space for the camels.” [“I have cleared the house” – of idols. But what do you learn from “and made space for the camels”?] That teaches us that they would not go into the house of Lavan the Aramean until all the idols were cleared out.
There is a story that Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa’s donkey was stolen by robbers. They put it in the courtyard and placed straw, barley, and water in front it, but it would not eat or drink. They said: How can we leave it here? It will just die and rot in the courtyard. So they opened the door and put the animal outside, and it started walking and kept going until it reached [the home of] Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa. When it got there, his son heard it braying. He said: Father, isn’t this voice is like the voice of our animal? He said: Son, open the door for it, for it is clearly dying of hunger. He got up and opened the door, and put straw and barley and water in front of it, and it ate and drank. That is why they say: Just as the early righteous people were pious, so too were their animals.”

Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby people say: If you are aware of a derogatory matter that is found in you, say it first before others say it about you? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source is as it is written with regard to Eliezer: “And he said: I am Abraham’s servant” (Genesis 24:34), immediately proclaiming that he is a servant.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to land contracting to shorten a journey: For three individuals the land contracted, and each one miraculously reached his destination quickly: Eliezer, servant of Abraham, and Jacob our forefather, and Abishai, son of Zeruiah. The Gemara elaborates: The case of Abishai, son of Zeruiah, is that which we said. The case of Eliezer, servant of Abraham, is as it is written: “And I came that day to the well” (Genesis 24:42). His intention was to say to the members of Rebecca’s family that on that day he left Canaan and on the same day he arrived, to underscore the miraculous nature of his undertaking on behalf of Abraham. The case of Jacob our forefather

The Gemara first analyzes the language of the verse: What is the meaning of “days”? If we say two days, the minimum number justifying the use of the plural, does a person really speak like this? Rebecca’s relatives said to Abraham’s servant that they wanted her to stay for two days, after which he said to them no, as he did not want to wait even that long. If so, is it possible that after that they said to him that they wanted her to stay for ten days? Consequently, it is impossible to explain the word “days” as two days and “ten” as ten days. Rather, what is the meaning of “days”? It means: A year, as it is written: “For days he shall have redemption” (Leviticus 25:29), and there it is explained that “days” is referring to a year. Consequently, in the verse “And her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten” (Genesis 24:55), “days” refers to a year, and “ten” refers to a shorter period of similar magnitude, i.e. ten months, in order to prepare for her wedding.