לעולם דלית בהו סימן נפקא מינה לאהדורי לצורבא מרבנן בטביעות עינא שבעתן העין קים ליה בגוייהו ומהדרינן ליה כי לא שבעתן העין לא קים ליה בגוייהו ולא מהדרינן ליה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בהני תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו במסכת ובפוריא ובאושפיזא מאי נפקא מינה אמר מר זוטרא לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת מהדרינן ליה ואי משני במילי אחריני לא מהדרינן ליה
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. 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.
רב כהנא יהבו ליה זוזי אכיתנא לסוף אייקר כיתנא אתא לקמיה דרב אמר ליה במאי דנקיטת זוזי הב להו ואידך דברים נינהו ודברים אין בהן משום מחוסרי אמנה דאיתמר דברים רב אמר אין בהן משום מחוסרי אמנה ורבי יוחנן אמר יש בהם משום מחוסרי אמנה מיתיבי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, לו) הין צדק והלא הין בכלל איפה היה אלא לומר לך שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק אמר אביי ההוא שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב
§ The Gemara relates: Buyers gave money to Rav Kahana to purchase linen. Ultimately, the price of linen increased. Rav Kahana came before Rav to ask his opinion. Rav said to him: Give them a quantity of linen equivalent in value to the money that you received, and concerning the rest, your verbal commitment is merely a statement, and reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition does not constitute an act of bad faith. The Gemara comments: This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition. Rav says: It does not constitute an act of bad faith. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith. The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited.
מֹשֶׁה כָּתַב סִפְרוֹ וּפָרָשַׁת בִּלְעָם וְאִיּוֹב מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר לַחְמָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר לַחְמָא אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה הָיָה כְּתִיב הָכָא מִי יִתֵּן אֵפוֹא וְיִכָּתְבוּן מִלָּי וּכְתִיב הָתָם וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא וְאֵימָא בִּימֵי יִצְחָק דִּכְתִיב מִי אֵפוֹא הוּא הַצָּד צַיִד וְאֵימָא בִּימֵי יַעֲקֹב דִּכְתִיב אִם כֵּן אֵפוֹא זֹאת עֲשׂוּ וְאֵימָא בִּימֵי יוֹסֵף דִּכְתִיב אֵיפֹה הֵם רוֹעִים לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דִּכְתִיב מִי יִתֵּן בַּסֵּפֶר וְיֻחָקוּ וּמֹשֶׁה הוּא דְּאִיקְּרִי מְחוֹקֵק דִּכְתִיב וַיַּרְא רֵאשִׁית לוֹ כִּי שָׁם חֶלְקַת מְחֹקֵק סָפוּן רָבָא אָמַר אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי מְרַגְּלִים הָיָה כְּתִיב הָכָא אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ וּכְתִיב הָתָם הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ מִי דָּמֵי הָכָא עוּץ הָתָם עֵץ הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ מֹשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יֶשְׁנוֹ לְאוֹתוֹ אָדָם שֶׁשְּׁנוֹתָיו אֲרוּכּוֹת כְּעֵץ וּמֵגֵין עַל דּוֹרוֹ כְּעֵץ יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר אִיּוֹב לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא מָשָׁל הָיָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא אִישׁ הָיָה בְאֶרֶץ עוּץ אִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה וְלָרָשׁ אֵין כֹּל כִּי אִם כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וְגוֹ׳ מִי הֲוָה אֶלָּא מָשָׁל בְּעָלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי מָשָׁל בְּעָלְמָא אִם כֵּן שְׁמוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ לָמָּה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אִיּוֹב מֵעוֹלֵי גוֹלָה הָיָה וּבֵית מִדְרָשׁוֹ בִּטְבֶרְיָא הָיָה מֵיתִיבִי יְמֵי שְׁנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אִיּוֹב מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִצְרַיִם וְעַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ אֵימָא כְּמִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִצְרַיִם וְעַד [שָׁעָה] שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מֵיתִיבִי שִׁבְעָה נְבִיאִים נִתְנַבְּאוּ לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בִּלְעָם וְאָבִיו וְאִיּוֹב אֱלִיפַז הַתֵּימָנִי וּבִלְדַּד הַשּׁוּחִי וְצוֹפַר הַנַּעֲמָתִי וֶאֱלִיהוּא בֶן בַּרַכְאֵל הַבּוּזִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ אֱלִיהוּא בֶן בַּרַכְאֵל לָאו מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲוָה וְהָא כְּתִיב מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת רָם אֶלָּא אִינַּבּוֹיֵ אִינַּבִּי לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הָכִי נָמֵי אִיּוֹב אִינַּבּוֹיֵ אִינַּבִּי [לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם] אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נְבִיאֵי מִי לָא אִינַּבּוֹ לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הָתָם עִיקַּר נְבִיאוּתַיְיהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָכָא עִיקַּר נְבִיאוּתַיְיהוּ לְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מֵיתִיבִי חָסִיד הָיָה בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאִיּוֹב שְׁמוֹ וְלֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל שְׂכָרוֹ הֵבִיא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָלָיו יִסּוּרִין הִתְחִיל מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף כָּפַל לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה [כְּדֵי] לְטׇרְדוֹ מִן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי שְׁפוֹט הַשּׁוֹפְטִים הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֵן אַתֶּם כֻּלְּכֶם חֲזִיתֶם וְלָמָּה זֶּה הֶבֶל תֶּהְבָּלוּ אֵיזֶה דּוֹר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ הֶבֶל הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל שְׁפוֹט הַשּׁוֹפְטִים רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא נִמְצָא נָשִׁים יָפוֹת כִּבְנוֹת אִיּוֹב בְּכׇל הָאָרֶץ אֵיזֶהוּ דּוֹר שֶׁנִּתְבַּקְּשׁוּ בּוֹ נָשִׁים יָפוֹת הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְאֵימָא בִּימֵי דָּוִד דִּכְתִיב וַיְבַקְשׁוּ נַעֲרָה יָפָה הָתָם בְּכֹל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל הָכָא בְּכׇל הָאָרֶץ רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי מַלְכוּת שְׁבָא הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַתִּפֹּל שְׁבָא וַתִּקָּחֵם וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי כַּשְׂדִּים הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כַּשְׂדִּים שָׂמוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אִיּוֹב בִּימֵי יַעֲקֹב הָיָה וְדִינָה בַּת יַעֲקֹב נָשָׂא כְּתִיב הָכָא כְּדַבֵּר אַחַת הַנְּבָלוֹת תְּדַבֵּרִי וּכְתִיב הָתָם כִּי נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּלְּהוּ תַּנָּאֵי סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּאִיּוֹב מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲוָה לְבַר מִיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הֲוָה בָּתַר דִּשְׁכֵיב מֹשֶׁה מִי שָׁרְיָא שְׁכִינָה עַל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְהָא אָמַר מָר בִּקֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה עַל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְנָתַן לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנִפְלִינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אִיּוֹב שָׁטוּף בְּזִמָּה הָיָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֵן אַתֶּם כּוּלְּכֶם חֲזִיתֶם וְלָמָּה זֶּה הֶבֶל תֶּהְבָּלוּ וּכְתִיב שׁוּבִי שׁוּבִי הַשּׁוּלַמִּית שׁוּבִי שׁוּבִי וְנֶחֱזֶה בָּךְ אֵימָא בִּנְבוּאָה דִּכְתִיב חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ אִם כֵּן לָמָּה זֶּה הֶבֶל תֶּהְבָּלוּ לְמָה לִי וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי דִּכְתִיב וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפוֹט הַשּׁוֹפְטִים דּוֹר שֶׁשּׁוֹפֵט אֶת שׁוֹפְטָיו אוֹמֵר לוֹ טוֹל קֵיסָם מִבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ אוֹמֵר לוֹ טוֹל קוֹרָה מִבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ אֹמֵר לוֹ כַּסְפְּךָ הָיָה לְסִיגִים אֹמֵר לוֹ סׇבְאֲךָ מָהוּל בְּמַיִם אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא אִשָּׁה הָיְתָה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה מַאי מַלְכַּת שְׁבָא מַלְכוּתָא דִּשְׁבָא
The baraita further states that Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, the portion of Balaam, and the book of Job. This supports Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma, as Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma says: Job lived in the time of Moses. It is written here with regard to Job: “Oh, that my words were written now [eifo]” (Job 19:23), and it is written there in Moses’ words to God: “For in what shall it be known here [eifo]” (Exodus 33:16). The unusual use of the word eifo in these two places indicates that Job and Moses lived in the same generation. The Gemara comments: But if that is the proof, say that Job lived in the time of Isaac, as it is written in connection with Isaac: “Who then [eifo] is he that has taken venison” (Genesis 27:33). Or say that he lived in the time of Jacob, as it is written with respect to Jacob: “If it must be so now [eifo], do this” (Genesis 43:11). Or say that he lived in the time of Joseph, as it is written with respect to Joseph: “Tell me, I pray you, where [eifo] are they feeding their flocks?” (Genesis 37:16). The Gemara answers: It could not enter your mind to say this, as it is written in the continuation of the previously mentioned verse: “Oh, that my words were inscribed [veyuḥaku] in a book” (Job 19:23), and it is Moses who is called the inscriber, as it is written with regard to him: “And he provided the first part for himself, for there was the inscriber’s [meḥokek] portion reserved” (Deuteronomy 33:21). Rava says: Job lived at the time of the spies whom Moses sent to scout the land of Canaan. This is proven by the fact that it is written here: “There was a man in the land of Utz, whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), and it is written there in the account of the spies: “Whether there are trees [eitz] in it” (Numbers 13:20). The Gemara asks: Is it comparable? Here the word that is used is Utz, whereas there the word is eitz. The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said to Israel, i.e., to the spies: Is that man named Job still alive, he whose years are as long as the years of a tree and who protects his generation like a tree? This is why the allusion to him here is through the word eitz, rather than Utz. The Gemara relates that one of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani and he sat and said: Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: “There was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did indeed exist. The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the words “there was” prove that Job existed, what shall we say about the parable that Natan the prophet presented to David: “There were two men in one city; the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little lamb, which he had bought and reared” (II Samuel 12:3)? Was there really such a person? Rather, it was merely a parable; here too it is merely a parable. The Gemara answers: If so, that it is a parable, why state his name and the name of his city? Rather, Job was clearly a real person. The Gemara cites another opinion with regard to the time when Job lived. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Job was among those who ascended from the exile to Eretz Yisrael at the start of the Second Temple period, and his house of study was in Tiberias. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: The days of Job’s life extended from when Israel entered Egypt until they left, indicating that this is the period during which he lived and not, as suggested, in the early days of the Second Temple. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita means that the duration of Job’s life lasted as long as from when Israel entered Egypt until when they left, but not that he lived during that specific time frame. The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita against the notion that Job was a Jew: Seven prophets prophesied to the nations of the world, and they are: Balaam and his father Beor, and Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite, which indicates that Job was not Jewish. He said to him: And according to your reasoning that Job could not have been Jewish because he prophesied to the nations of the world, was Elihu ben Barachel not a Jew? Is it not written: “Of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2), meaning Abraham? Rather, one must explain that Elihu is included in this list because he prophesied to the nations of the world; and so too it may be maintained that Job is included in this list, even though he is Jewish, because he prophesied to the nations of the world. The Gemara asks: But did not all the other prophets also prophesy to the nations of the world? Why then are only these seven mentioned? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the other prophets, their main prophecies were directed to Israel, whereas here, with regard to these seven prophets, their main prophecies were directed to the nations of the world. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a different baraita: There was a certain pious man among the nations of the world and his name was Job, and he came into the world only to receive his reward. The Holy One, Blessed be He, brought afflictions upon him, and he began to blaspheme and curse. The Holy One, Blessed be He, doubled his reward in this world in order to expel him from the World-to-Come. This baraita states that Job was not a Jew, but rather a gentile. The Gemara responds: The matter of whether or not Job was Jewish is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the period during which Job lived: Rabbi Elazar says: Job lived in the days of the judging of the Judges, as it is stated in connection with Job: “Behold, all you yourselves have seen it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12). Which generation was completely vain? You must say it was the generation of the judging of the Judges, when the people judged the Judges, as will be explained shortly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, as it is stated: “And in all the world were no women found so beautiful as the daughters of Job” (Job 42:15). In which generation were beautiful women sought? You must say it was the generation of Ahasuerus (Esther, chapter 2). The Gemara asks: But why not say it was in the days of David, as it is written: “And they sought a beautiful maiden” (I Kings 1:3)? The Gemara answers: There, in the time of David, they searched “throughout the territory of Israel” (I Kings 1:3), whereas here, in the time of Ahasuerus, they searched throughout the world, as is similarly stated with regard to Job’s daughters. Rabbi Natan says: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of Sheba, as it is stated: “And Sheba fell upon them, and took them away” (Job 1:15). And the Rabbis say: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of the Chaldeans in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, as it is stated: “The Chaldeans formed three bands” (Job 1:17). And some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. As it is written here: “You speak as one of the loathsome women speaks” (Job 2:10), and it is written there in the account of the incident involving Dina: “He has done a loathsome act in Israel” (Genesis 34:7). This concludes the text of the baraita. The Gemara comments: And all these tanna’im hold that Job was a Jew except for the opinion introduced with the phrase: And some say, according to which Job lived in the time of Jacob, and he was certainly not one of Jacob’s sons. And what is the proof that all these tanna’im maintain that Job was Jewish? As if it should enter your mind to say that he came from the nations of the world, there is a difficulty: After Moses died, did the Divine Presence rest any longer on the nations of the world? But doesn’t the Master say: Moses requested that the Divine Presence not rest again on the nations of the world, and his request was granted to him, as it is stated: “That we shall be differentiated, I and Your people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16), and it is stated there that God acceded to his request. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The generation of Job was awash in licentiousness, as it is stated: “Behold, all of you yourselves have seen [ḥazitem] it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12), and it is written: “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look [veneḥeze] upon you” (Song of Songs 7:1), which teaches that the phrase “you have seen it” connotes a licentious gaze. The Gemara asks: But say that the phrase “you yourselves have seen it” signifies prophecy, as it is written: “The vision [ḥazon] of Isaiah ben Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need the words: “Why then have you become altogether vain”? Rather, the reference must be to inappropriate licentious gazing. And further, with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement in the baraita that the generation of the judging of the Judges was one of vanity, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And it happened in the days of the judging of the Judges” (Ruth 1:1)? This indicates a generation that judged its judges. If a judge would say to the defendant standing before him: Remove the splinter from between your eyes, meaning rid yourself of some minor infraction, the defendant would say to him: Remove the beam from between your eyes, meaning you have committed far more severe sins. If the judge would say to him: “Your silver is become dross” (Isaiah 1:22), meaning your coins are counterfeit, the defendant would say to him: “Your wine is mixed with water” (Isaiah 1:22), meaning you yourself dilute your wine with water and sell it. Since nobody behaved in proper manner, the judges were unable to judge. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who says that the queen of Sheba [malkat Sheva] who came to visit King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 10) was a woman is nothing other than mistaken. What is the meaning of malkat Sheba? The kingdom [malkhuta] of Sheba, as is mentioned in Job: “And Sheba fell on them and took them away” (Job 1:15).