״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״. מַאי ״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת״ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹמְדִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְשָׁל בָּהֶן — ״יֶשְׁנָן תַּחַת יָדֶךָ״. ״יִשָּׂא בַיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה לֹא תְשִׂימוּנִי קְצִין עָם״. ״יִשָּׂא״ — אֵין יִשָּׂא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שְׁבוּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. ״לֹא אֶהְיֶה חוֹבֵשׁ״ — לֹא הָיִיתִי מֵחוֹבְשֵׁי בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. ״וּבְבֵיתִי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין שִׂמְלָה״ — שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדִי לֹא מִקְרָא וְלֹא מִשְׁנָה וְלֹא גְּמָרָא.
What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear [yissa],” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [tissa] the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer [ḥovesh]” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit [meḥovshei] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.
כַּלָּה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה חִיגֶּרֶת אוֹ סוֹמָא, אוֹמְרִים לָהּ: ״כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה״? וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִקָּח רַע מִן הַשּׁוּק, יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו, אוֹ יְגַנֶּנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעוֹרֶבֶת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.
לְעוֹלָם דְּלֵית בְּהוּ סִימָן – נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לְצוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן – קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ וּמַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ. כִּי לֹא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן – לָא קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ, וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי עֲבִידִי רַבָּנַן דִּמְשַׁנּוּ בְּמִלַּיְיהוּ – בְּמַסֶּכֶת, וּבְפוּרְיָא
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.
וּבְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵידְתָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. אִי יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְשַׁנֵּי אֶלָּא בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת – מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מְשַׁנֵּי בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמַּחְלִיף בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהָיִיתִי בְעֵינָיו כִּמְתַעְתֵּעַ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הֶבֶל הֵמָּה מַעֲשֵׂה תַּעְתֻּעִים״.
And Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who amends the truth in his speech, it is as though he worships idols. As, it is written here, in the verse where Jacob sought to resist taking his father’s blessing from Esau: “And I shall seem to him a deceiver [metate’a]” (Genesis 27:12), and it is written there with regard to idol worship: “They are vanity, the work of deception [tatuim]” (Jeremiah 10:15).