Ketubot: Greatest Hits

The Gemara questions the following premise: By Torah law, a condition that is unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond one’s control is considered fulfilled, and it is merely by rabbinic ordinance that it is deemed unfulfilled: And is there a matter where by Torah law it is not a bill of divorce, but due to virtuous women and due to licentious women we permit a married woman to others? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is within the authority of the Sages to institute an ordinance freeing the woman from the marriage, as anyone who betroths a woman, betroths her contingent upon the agreement of the Sages, and in certain cases, such as those mentioned above, the Sages invalidated his betrothal retroactively. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: That works out well if he betrothed her with money, as in that case, the courts could declare the money ownerless, and one cannot betroth a woman with money that is not his. However, if he betrothed her with intercourse, what can be said? Rav Ashi answered: The Sages rendered his intercourse licentious intercourse.

§ Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: With regard to the quorum of ten required to recite the wedding blessings, grooms are included in the tally. And mourners are not included in the tally for the blessing of the mourners. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Grooms and mourners are included in the tally. The Gemara responds: Are you raising a contradiction from a baraita against the opinion of Rav? Rav himself had tanna status and therefore, unlike later amora’im, could disagree with opinions of tanna’im. It was stated: Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Grooms are included in the tally, but mourners are not included in the tally. The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita cited above: Grooms and mourners are included in the tally. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is with regard to combining with others to form a quorum of three to recite Grace after Meals, as a mourner is obligated to recite Grace after Meals. However, when Rabbi Yoḥanan says that mourners are not included in the tally, it is with regard to the quorum of ten men required to form a line to comfort the mourners following the burial. And the Gemara raises an objection: However, that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing of the grooms in a quorum of ten, and the grooms are included in the tally, and one recites the blessing of the mourners in a quorum of ten, and the mourners are not included in the tally. Is there a blessing recited in the line formed to comfort the mourners? Clearly, this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan cannot be explained as referring to the line. Rather, when Rabbi Yoḥanan said that mourners are not included in the tally, it was with regard to the blessing recited in the square adjacent to the cemetery, where the meal of comfort takes place and various blessings are recited to comfort the mourners. Mourners are not included in the requisite quorum of ten. The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing of the grooms in a quorum of ten all seven days of celebration, and the grooms are included in the tally; and one recites the blessing of the mourners all seven days of mourning in a quorum of ten, and the mourners are not included in the tally, is there a blessing recited in the square all seven days? The meal of comfort and the associated blessings take place directly after the burial, not throughout the seven days of mourning. The Gemara answers: You find blessings recited throughout the seven-day mourning period in a case where new faces who did not attend the burial are present. In that case, eulogies and words of comfort are repeated, and the blessing of the mourners is recited again.

§ This is similar to that incident involving Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba, who was the Bible teacher of the sons of Reish Lakish, and some say that he was the Mishna teacher of the son of Reish Lakish. His child died. On the first day, Reish Lakish did not go to comfort him. The next day, he took Yehuda bar Naḥmani, his disseminator, with him to comfort Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba. Reish Lakish said to his disseminator: Stand and say a matter of comfort with regard to the death of the child. He began and said: “And the Lord saw it and He abhorred them, due to the provocation of His sons and His daughters” (Deuteronomy 32:19). A generation in which the fathers abhor the Holy One, Blessed be He, He is angered at their sons and their daughters, and they die when they are small. And there are those who say that the child who died was not a small child, but a youth, and this is what the disseminator said to him: “Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, nor shall He have compassion on their orphans and widows, for everyone is a flatterer and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks obscenity. For all this His anger is not turned away, and His hand is still outstretched” (Isaiah 9:16). What is the meaning of the phrase “And His hand is still outstretched”? Rav Ḥanan bar Rav said: Everyone knows why a bride enters the wedding canopy. It is the step before consummation of the marriage. However, one should not speak about it unnecessarily, as anyone who profanes his mouth and issues a matter of profanity from his mouth, even if a positive decree of seventy years was sealed for him, nevertheless, it is transformed for him into an evil decree. The Gemara asks about this incident: He came at the behest of Reish Lakish to comfort Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba and instead he upset him by attributing the death of his son to his transgressions! The Gemara answers: It was not his intention to upset Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba and to attribute the death of his son to his actions. Rather, this is what he is saying to him: You are sufficiently significant to be seized, i.e., to die or suffer, for the sins of the generation, as it is specifically the righteous few who are punished for the transgressions of a sinful generation. Reish Lakish said to his disseminator: Stand and say a statement with regard to the praiseworthiness of the Holy One, Blessed be He. He began and said: God, Who is great in the abundance of His greatness, mighty and strong in the abundance of His awesome deeds, Who revives the dead in fulfillment of His statement, Who does great deeds beyond comprehension, wondrous deeds without number. Blessed are You, Lord, Who revives the dead. Reish Lakish said to him: Stand and say a statement with regard to the mourners. He began and said: Our brothers, who are exhausted, who are overwhelmed by this mourning, set your heart to examine this: This is what stands forever. It is a path from the six days of Creation, i.e., death exists since Creation, and it is well known that this is the fate of man. Many have drunk from the poisonous cup of death, and many will drink. As was the consequence of the drink of the first who have drunk, so too will be the consequence of the drink of the last who will drink. Our brothers, may the Master of solace comfort you. Blessed are You, Lord, Who comforts the mourners. Abaye said with regard to the statement concerning the mourners: Let him say: Many have drunk; let him not say: Many will drink. Let him say: The drink of the first; let him not say: The drink of the last. This is as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise it was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: A person should never open his mouth to Satan and speculate about potential disasters. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which, what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10). Isaiah drew the analogy and immediately it was realized. Reish Lakish said to the disseminator: Stand and say a statement with regard to those who comfort the mourners. He began and said: Our brothers, bestowers of loving-kindness, sons of bestowers of loving-kindness, who embrace the covenant of Abraham our Patriarch, as it is stated: “For I know him, that he will command his children…to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19). Our brothers, may the Master of reward pay you your just deserts. Blessed are You, Lord, Who pays the just deserts. Reish Lakish said to the disseminator: Stand and say a statement with regard to the entire Jewish people. He began and said: Master of the worlds, redeem and save, rescue and deliver Your people, Israel, from the pestilence and from the sword, and from spoil, and from the blight, and from the mildew, and from all types of afflictions that suddenly erupt and come to the world. Before we call and You will respond. Blessed are You, Lord, Who halts the plague. Apparently, several blessings are recited on the days following the burial.

§ In connection with comforting mourners, Ulla said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted ten cups of wine to be drunk in the house of the mourner: Three cups prior to the meal, in order to open his intestines, i.e., whet his appetite; three during the meal, to soak the food in his intestines in order to facilitate digestion; and four cups after the meal, each corresponding to a blessing in the Grace after Meals. One corresponds to the first blessing: Who feeds all; one corresponds to the second blessing, the blessing of the land; one corresponding to the third blessing: Who builds Jerusalem; and one corresponding to the fourth blessing: Who is good and does good. Later, the Sages added to those four additional blessings: One, noting the actions of the attendants of the city [ḥazzanei ha’ir], who tend to burials and other communal needs; one, noting the actions of the leaders of the city, who would provide funding for the burial of the poor; one, noting the Temple, commemorating its destruction; and one, noting the actions of Rabban Gamliel. The people began observing this ordinance instituted by the Sages, and they would drink and become intoxicated. Therefore, the Sages restored the matter to its previous status and established that they drink no more than ten cups. What is the connection between Rabban Gamliel and a house of mourning? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the funeral expenditures for the deceased were more taxing for his relatives than his death, as the burials were opulent, until it reached a point where people would abandon the deceased and flee. This continued until Rabbi Gamliel came and conducted himself in a self-deprecatory manner, instructing the people that they were to take him for burial in plain linen garments. And all the people conducted themselves following his example, and instructed their families to take them for burial in plain linen garments. Rav Pappa said: And today, everyone is accustomed to bury the dead in plain garments, even in rough cloth [tzerada] worth one zuz.

§ The Gemara relates: A certain man who had never been married came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice when I consummated the marriage. Rav Naḥman said in his regard: Flog him with palm branches [kufrei]; prostitutes [mevarakhta] are common around him. As he was never previously married, how was he able to determine whether or not the orifice was unobstructed, if he did not gain experience with prostitutes? The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rav Naḥman he who said that he is deemed credible when he claims that he encountered an unobstructed orifice? The Gemara answers: Yes, he is deemed credible, and nevertheless, we flog him with palm branches. Rav Aḥai answered: Here, in the case where he is flogged, it is with regard to a bachelor, who is not accorded credibility, because he lacks experience. There, in the case where he is accorded credibility, it is with regard to one who has been married. The Gemara relates a similar incident from an earlier era: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Perhaps you diverted your approach and therefore, you encountered no obstruction? I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who was walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrived at the entrance to the house; if he diverts the object preventing the door from opening, he finds it open; if he does not divert it, he finds it locked. Perhaps you too diverted your approach and entered from a different angle and that is why you did not encounter an obstruction. Some say this is what Rabban Gamliel said to him: Maybe you diverted your approach intentionally and you displaced the door and the bolt. I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrives at his entrance. If he diverts intentionally, he finds it open; if he does not divert intentionally, he finds it locked. The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I was a virgin. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Bring me that cloth [sudar] on which you consummated the marriage. They brought him the cloth, and he soaked it in water and laundered it and found upon it several drops of blood from the rupture of the hymen. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the groom: Go take possession of your acquisition, as she was a virgin and there is no need for concern. Huna Mar, son of Rava, from Parzakya, said to Rav Ashi: Let us do so as well in similar cases and examine whether there is blood that is obscured by semen or another substance. Rav Ashi said to him: Our calendering in Babylonia, which includes passing an abrasive stone over the garments to scrape off dirt, is like their laundering in Eretz Israel, and only in that manner do the garments in Babylonia reach that level of cleanliness. And if you say: Let us perform the process of calendering on cloths brought as proof that she was not a virgin, the stone removes any trace of blood. Therefore, the process would be ineffective. The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I am still a virgin. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Bring me two maidservants, one a virgin and one a non-virgin, to conduct a trial. They brought him the two maidservants, and he seated them on the opening of a barrel of wine. From the non-virgin, he discovered that the scent of the wine in the barrel diffuses from her mouth; from the virgin he discovered that the scent does not diffuse from her mouth. Then, he also seated that bride on the barrel, and the scent of the wine did not diffuse from her mouth. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the groom: Go take possession of your acquisition, as she is a virgin. The Gemara asks: Since Rabban Gamliel was familiar with this method of examination, let him use it to examine her initially. Why was the trial with the maidservants necessary? The Gemara answers: He learned that it was effective through tradition; however, he had never seen it in action, and he thought perhaps he was not sufficiently expert in that manner of examination, and it is improper conduct to demean Jewish women by subjecting them to that indignity for naught. Once he established the effectiveness of that method, he proceeded to examine the bride to resolve the matter. The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel the Elder said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I am from the family of Dorketi, who have neither menstrual blood nor blood from the rupture of the hymen. Rabban Gamliel investigated among her relatives to determine whether the claim with regard to her family was true, and discovered that the truth was in accordance with her statement. He said to him: Go take possession of your acquisition. Happy are you that you were privileged to marry a member of the Dorketi family, as those forms of blood will never pose a problem for you. The Gemara elaborates: What is the meaning of Dorketi? It means truncated generation [dor katua]. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabban Gamliel consoled that man with vain words of consolation, because the absence of blood in this woman is a drawback. As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so too, blood is fortuitous for a woman. And it was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful. This bride, who lacks blood, will not produce many children. It was stated that there is a dispute with regard to Rabban Gamliel’s reply. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rabban Gamliel said to the groom: Exercise your privilege and take possession of your acquisition. And Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said that Rabban Gamliel said to him: It is your misfortune to take possession of your acquisition. Granted, according to the one who says: It is your misfortune, that is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said the consolation was vain. However, according to the one who says: Exercise your privilege, what is the privilege to which he is referring? The Gemara answers: The privilege is that thanks to the condition of the women of this family, he will not come to a situation of uncertainty whether she has the halakhic status of a menstruating woman. The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I was still a virgin. And the Gemara comments that this incident was during years of drought. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw that their faces were black due to hunger. He instructed his attendants to tend to them and they took them into the bathhouse and bathed them and they fed them and gave them drink. Then they took them into a room, and the groom engaged in intercourse with her and found blood, as it was due to the famine that there was no blood. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Go take possession of your acquisition. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read this verse in their regard: “Their skin is shriveled upon their bones, it is withered, it has become like a stick” (Lamentations 4:8), in the sense that no blood flows from them. MISHNA: With regard to a virgin, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and with regard to a widow, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. With regard to a virgin who is a widow, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza who achieved that status from a state of betrothal, before marriage and before consummation of the marriage, for all of these their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity, as their presumptive status of virginity is intact.

Apropos the statement of Rav Ḥana of Baghdad, the Gemara cites additional statements of his. And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: Rain irrigates, saturates, and fertilizes the land, and refines the fruit and causes it to proliferate. Rava bar Rabbi Yishmael, and some say it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Watering its ridges abundantly, settling its furrows, You make it soft with showers, You bless its growth” (Psalms 65:11). “Watering its ridges abundantly” indicates that the rain irrigates and saturates the land, “You make it soft with showers” indicates that it fertilizes the land, and “You bless its growth” indicates that it refines the fruit and causes it to proliferate. Rabbi Elazar said: The term mizbe’aḥ, altar, is a rough acrostic representing its qualities. It moves [meziaḥ] sins and sustains [mezin], because as a result of the offerings sacrificed on the altar, sustenance is provided to all. It endears [meḥabev], and atones [mekhapper]. Mizbe’aḥ evokes the letters mem and zayin from the first two qualities, bet from meḥabev and the kaf from mekhapper. The Gemara asks: This quality, that the altar atones, is the same as that quality, that it moves sins. Why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: The altar moves evil decrees, and atones for sins. And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said: Dates warm and satiate, loosen the bowels, strengthen, but do not pamper. Rav said: If one ate dates he should not issue halakhic rulings, as dates are intoxicating. The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to dates, in the morning and evening they have a positive effect on one who eats them; in the afternoon, they have a negative effect on one who eats them. At noon, their positive effect is unparalleled, and they negate three matters: A troubling thought, intestinal illness, and hemorrhoids. Apparently, the effect of dates is primarily a positive one. The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction. Did we say that they are not exemplary? They are exemplary, and at the same time cause temporary distraction and intoxication, just as it is in the case of wine, as the Master said: One who drinks a quarter-log of wine should not issue halakhic rulings. And if you wish, say instead: This apparent contradiction is not difficult. This statement, which prohibits issuing a ruling under the influence of dates, is referring to one eating dates before he eats bread, when eating them can lead to intoxication. That statement, which enumerates the salutary effects of dates, is referring to one eating dates after he eats bread. As Abaye said: My mother told me that dates eaten before eating bread are destructive like an ax to a palm tree; dates eaten after eating bread are beneficial like a bolt to a door, which provides support.

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: With regard to a convert who is a minor, one immerses him in a ritual bath with the consent of the court. As a minor lacks the capacity to make halakhic decisions, the court is authorized to make those decisions in his stead. What is Rav Huna coming to teach us? Is he teaching that it is a privilege for the minor to convert, and one may act in a person’s interests even in his absence? We already learned that explicitly in a mishna (Eiruvin 81b): One may act in a person’s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a person’s interests in his absence. Rav Huna’s statement was necessary lest you say: With regard to a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, so conversion is contrary to his interests, just as we maintain that with regard to a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion. Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us: That applies only with regard to an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. However, with regard to a minor, who did not yet engage in those activities, it is a privilege for him to convert.

Rav Yosef said: In any case where minors convert, when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from the mishna: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant who were ransomed, or who converted, or who were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And if it enters your mind to say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her the payment of the marriage contract that she will go and consume in her gentile state? The Gemara answers: She receives payment of her marriage contract once she has reached majority and does not protest, but not while still a minor. The Gemara asks: When she reaches majority too, is there not the same concern that she will protest and abandon Judaism? The Gemara answers: Once she reached majority for even one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. This mishna poses no difficulty to the opinion of Rav Yosef. Rava raised an objection from a mishna (29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret; or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, there is a fine paid to their fathers if they are raped. And if you say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her payment of the fine that she will go and consume in her gentile state? The Gemara answers: Her father receives payment of the fine once she has reached majority and does not protest, but not while she is still a minor. The Gemara asks: When she reaches majority too, is there not the same concern that she will protest and abandon Judaism? The Gemara answers: Once she reached majority for even one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most gentiles are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in intercourse with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality, and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.

Rav Yirmeya raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, who apparently ruled that even in cases where there is one majority the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And in matters of lineage, do we not require two majorities, a majority of the city’s inhabitants and a majority of the passing contingent? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Makhshirin 2:7): If there is a city in which both Jews and gentiles reside, and one found an unidentified, abandoned baby in the city, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city the baby is deemed a gentile; if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew. If half the population is gentile and half Jewish, the baby is deemed a Jew. And Rav said with regard to this mishna: The Sages taught that if there is a majority of Jews in the city the baby is deemed a Jew only with regard to sustaining him; however, with regard to lineage, e.g., marrying him to a Jewish woman, no, he is not deemed a Jew based on the majority and would require conversion. And Shmuel said: It was taught that he is deemed a Jew in order to create an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf on Shabbat, i.e., desecrating Shabbat in order to save his life. Apparently, contrary to the ruling of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rav holds that a single majority is insufficient to deem him Jewish in matters of lineage. The Gemara answers: Rav Yirmeya overlooked that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said with regard to the mishna: The incident of the rape of the young girl transpired among the wagons in the marketplace of Tzippori, and there were two majorities; the majority of the inhabitants of the city and the majority of the passing contingent. Therefore, when Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., that the young girl may marry a priest, it was in a case of two majorities.

§ The Sages taught: How does one dance before the bride, i.e., what does one recite while dancing at her wedding? Beit Shammai say: 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. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [ḥamisin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin]. The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor’s house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace. With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation. Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man. Rav Aḥa would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride. § The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman who said: I was a married woman and now I am a divorcée, she is deemed credible and permitted to remarry, as the mouth that prohibited and established that she was married is the mouth that permitted, and established that she is divorced. However, if there are witnesses that she was a married woman, and she says: I am a divorcée, she is not deemed credible. Similarly, with regard to a woman who said: I was taken captive but I am pure, as I was not raped in captivity, she is deemed credible and permitted to marry a priest, as the mouth that prohibited and established that she was taken captive is the mouth that permitted and established that she was not defiled. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, she is not deemed credible. And if witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband.

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles due to a monetary offense committed by her husband, once she is released after he pays his debt, she is permitted to her husband, even if he is a priest. There is no concern that they violated her because their objective is to coerce the husband to pay his debt in exchange for her release. Were they to abuse her, it is possible that he would be unwilling to pay. However, if a woman was imprisoned due to a capital offense and sentenced to death, once she is released she is forbidden to her husband even if he is not a priest due to the concern that perhaps her captors violated her, and she acquiesced to one of them. GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: They taught this mishna only in a case where the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world, and the gentiles are law-abiding citizens. However, when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, a euphemism for dominance over the Jewish people, even a woman who was imprisoned due to a monetary offense is forbidden to her husband, as there is nothing preventing her jailers from violating her. Rava raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 8:2): Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, but her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral, deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral at all. In either case, she is permitted to her husband. Rava asks: But this took place in Ashkelon, which is a place where the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, as it was a city of gentiles, and it is taught: If she was taken as security, in a case where her husband stipulated that if he fails to pay a debt the gentiles may take his wife and do with her as they please, yes, she requires witnesses to testify that she was not violated. However, if she was imprisoned by the authorities, no, she is deemed untainted even without witnesses. Apparently, the distinction is not based on the dominance of the Jewish people. Rather, it is based on the manner in which she was apprehended. The Gemara answers: The same is true that she is forbidden to her husband even if she was imprisoned, and the reason that the tanna’im testified about a case where she was taken as security is because the incident that transpired, transpired in that manner. Some say a different version of this tradition. Rava said that we too learn a proof from a mishna for the statement that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as security for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, and her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral, believe the witnesses who say that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not believe the witnesses that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not believe the witnesses that she was taken as collateral at all. Rava asks: But in the case in Ashkelon that was due to a monetary offense, the reason that she was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted to her husband, although she was taken due to a monetary offense. What, is it not that it is no different if she was taken as collateral and it is no different if she was imprisoned? Apparently, if the authority of the gentiles is dominant, even if she was imprisoned for the sake of money there is concern that she was violated. The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the case where the woman is taken as collateral is different, and only in that case, where her husband stipulated that the gentiles could take her, would the gentiles allow themselves to violate her. However, in a case where she is imprisoned there is no concern of that sort. Some raise it as a contradiction between the sources. We learned in the mishna: A woman who was taken hostage due to a monetary offense is permitted to her husband. And they raise a contradiction from the mishna in Eduyyot: Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. But this is not the case in Ashkelon, which was due to a monetary offense, and it is taught that the reason that the woman was permitted is that witnesses testified about her that she was untainted. However, if witnesses did not testify about her, no, she would not be permitted, although she was taken for the sake of money. And he answers that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a period when the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world. Then, a woman taken hostage for the sake of money is permitted. There it is referring to a period when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves and over the Jewish people. Therefore, even a woman taken because of a monetary offense is forbidden unless witnesses testify that she is untainted.

MISHNA: Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav said: I swear by this abode of the Divine Presence that my wife’s hand did not move from my hand from the time that the gentiles entered Jerusalem until they left, and I know for a fact that she was not defiled. The Sages said to him: A person cannot testify about himself. The legal status of one’s wife is like his own status in this regard. Therefore, your testimony is not accepted, and your wife is forbidden to you. GEMARA: The tanna taught in the Tosefta: And even so, despite the fact that the Sages ruled his wife forbidden to him because he was a priest, he did not divorce her. He designated a house in his courtyard for her, but did not enter into seclusion with her, and when she would go out of the courtyard she would go out before her sons so that she would not be alone in the courtyard with her husband, and when she would enter the house, she would enter after her sons, for the same reason. Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha regarding whether we have to do likewise with a divorcée? Can a priest who divorces his wife designate a house for her in the courtyard and rely on the children to ensure that the couple will not enter into seclusion? Is it specifically there, in the case of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav because with regard to a captive woman the Sages ruled leniently, since the prohibition is based on suspicion and not certainty; however here, in the case of a divorcée, where there is a certain Torah prohibition, no, he may not designate a residence for her in the courtyard? Or perhaps, the case of a divorcée is no different. The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who divorces his wife, she may not marry and live in his immediate vicinity, i.e., his courtyard, due to the concern that because of the intimacy they once shared, her living there will lead to transgression. And if he was a priest she may not live with him even in one alleyway that opens into several courtyards, even if she did not remarry, as she is forbidden to him forever. What is the ruling if it was a small village? May she live with her ex-husband in the same village? The Gemara relates that this case of his divorcée and a small village was an incident that transpired and the Sages said: A small village is judged as his immediate proximity. The Gemara asks: In cases where they may not reside in the same courtyard or alleyway, who is ousted in favor of whom? Which of them must leave? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him, and leaves, and he is not ousted in favor of her. But if it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If it was a courtyard belonging to both of them, what is the halakha; who is ousted in favor of whom? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof as it is taught in a baraita: She is ousted in favor of him. The Gemara elaborates: With what circumstances are we dealing? If we say that the subject of the baraita is with regard to his courtyard, it is obvious that she is ousted. But rather, is it with regard to her courtyard? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If it was her courtyard, he is ousted in favor of her? Rather, is it not that the baraita is dealing with a case like this, where it was a courtyard belonging to both of them? The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is teaching that even in a case where he rented the courtyard she is ousted in his favor. Therefore, the dilemma with regard to a courtyard belonging to both of them is unresolved. The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the verse: “The Lord will dislocate you the dislocation of a man” (Isaiah 22:17), and Rav said: This indicates that the dislocation of a man is more difficult for him than the dislocation of a woman is for her. Therefore, the woman is ousted.

§ The Gemara comments: And the mishna’s ruling that one who has relations with his sister is liable to pay the fine comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment for damages. Just as one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana? Abaye said: It states the word harm at the hands of man, in the verse “But if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul” (Exodus 21:23) and it states the word harm at the hand of Heaven, in the verse in which Jacob states: “My son shall not descend with you…and harm befalls him on the way” (Genesis 42:38). Just as with regard to harm that is stated at the hands of man, e.g., one who kills and is liable to be executed, one is exempt from the associated payment, so too, with regard to harm that is stated at the hand of Heaven, one is exempt from the associated payment. Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: From where is it derived that when Jacob is warning his sons he is warning them about cold and heat [tzinim paḥim], which are at the hand of Heaven? Perhaps he was warning them about a lion and thieves, which are harm at the hands of man, meaning that unlike heat and cold, these dangers are not calibrated by God. The Gemara refutes this: Is that to say that Jacob warned them about this harm at the hand of man, but about that harm at the hand of Heaven he did not warn them? Jacob warned them about all potentially harmful matters that might befall Benjamin, not merely one particular form of catastrophe. The Gemara asks: And are cold and heat at the hand of Heaven? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: All matters are at the hand of Heaven except for cold and heat, as it is stated: “Cold and heat are on the path of the crooked, he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5)? This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. And furthermore, are a lion and thieves forms of harm at the hands of man? But didn’t Rav Yosef say, and similarly, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished the four death penalties were not abolished? The Gemara asks: Were they not abolished? It is clear that they were abolished, as today there is neither Sanhedrin nor capital punishment. Rather, it means that although there are no court-imposed executions, the punishment of the four death penalties was not abolished. How so? One who was liable to be executed by stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him. That is similar to stoning, which involves being pushed off an elevated place and then stoned. And one who was liable to be executed by burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him, which creates a burning sensation. And one who was liable to be executed by decapitation is either handed over to the ruling monarchy for execution by sword, or bandits attack and kill him. And one who was liable to be executed by strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [serunki]. Rather, reverse the order of the previous statement: A lion and thieves are cases of harm at the hand of Heaven, while cold and heat are cases of harm at the hands of man. Rava said an additional explanation: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana is from here. It is written that one who gives his children to Molech is liable to be executed by stoning: “And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death; then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off [vehikhrati]” (Leviticus 20:4–5). Through the juxtaposition in this verse the Torah said: My karet is like your death penalty; just as one who is liable to receive your death penalty is exempt from the associated payments, so too, one who is liable to receive My karet is exempt from the associated payments.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: For what pain is he obligated to pay? Shmuel’s father said: It is for the pain that he caused when he slammed her onto the ground while raping her. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But if what you say is so, if he slammed her onto silk, so too is the halakha that he is exempt from payment for pain? And if you say indeed that it is so, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay for the pain due to the fact that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during intercourse when under the authority of her husband? They said to him: One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. Apparently, the pain associated with rape is a direct result of the forced intercourse and not of some associated cause. Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: “And you opened your legs to every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25). The Gemara asks: If so, a seduced woman should also be obligated to make that payment as well. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh stated a parable: To what can this matter of a seducer be compared? It can be compared to a person who said to another: Tear my silk and be exempt from payment. Since she engaged in relations of her own volition, she certainly absolved him of payment for the pain. The Gemara asks: Tear my silk? It is not her silk, and therefore she may not waive payment for damage to it; it is the silk of her father, as the fine and the other payments are paid to him. Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the clever women among them say that a seduced woman has no pain during intercourse, as she is a willing participant. The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that even a married woman has pain when she engages in sexual relations for the first time? Abaye said: My foster mother told me that the pain is like hot water on the head of a bald man. Rava said: My wife, Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura’s daughter, told me that it is like the feeling of hard bread on the gums. When a woman engages in intercourse willingly, the pain is negligible. Therefore, the seducer is not obligated to pay for pain.

MISHNA: A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal through money, through a marriage document, or through intercourse. Likewise, a father is entitled to items she has found, and to her earnings, and to effect the nullification of her vows, i.e., a father may nullify his daughter’s vows. And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. And although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother’s family, he does not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime. If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he consumes the produce of her property during her lifetime, and he is obligated to provide her sustenance, her redemption if she is captured, and her burial upon her death. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman, which it was customary to hire for a funeral, as these too are included in the duties of burial.

Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: “She’era,” this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations.

MISHNA: And these are tasks that a wife must perform for her husband: She grinds wheat into flour, and bakes, and washes clothes, cooks, and nurses her child, makes her husband’s bed, and makes thread from wool by spinning it. If she brought him one maidservant, i.e., brought the maidservant with her into the marriage, the maidservant will perform some of these tasks. Consequently, the wife does not need to grind, and does not need to bake, and does not need to wash clothes. If she brought him two maidservants, she does not need to cook and does not need to nurse her child if she does not want to, but instead may give the child to a wet nurse. If she brought him three maidservants, she does not need to make his bed and does not need to make thread from wool. If she brought him four maidservants, she may sit in a chair [katedra] like a queen and not do anything, as her maidservants do all of her work for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants, he can compel her to make thread from wool, since idleness leads to licentiousness. Consequently, it is better for a woman to be doing some kind of work. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract, since idleness leads to idiocy. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s choice of terminology the Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind that she grinds the wheat into flour? Ordinarily, grinding is performed in a mill using millstones that are rotated by water or by animals, so the woman herself does not actually grind the wheat. The Gemara answers: Rather, say that she supervises the grinding by bringing wheat to the mill and ensuring that it is ground properly. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead: She can grind the wheat herself with a hand mill. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for beauty, and a wife is only for children, but not for household tasks. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A wife is only for wearing a woman’s finery. And Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: One who wishes to beautify his wife should clothe her in linen garments, and one who wishes to whiten his daughter so that she will have a fair complexion, should feed her young chickens, and should give her milk to drink toward the time of her maturity.

§ Apropos the period of time during which a child nurses, the Gemara continues to debate different aspects of this matter. The Sages taught in a baraita: A child may continue to nurse until the age of twenty-four months, and from this point forward, if he continues to nurse, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal, as a woman’s milk is forbidden to anyone other than a small child; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years, and this is permitted. However, if he ceased, i.e., was weaned, after twenty-four months and then resumed nursing, he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Master said in the baraita: From this point forward he is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One might have thought that the milk of bipeds, i.e., humans, would be non-kosher like that of a non-kosher animal, based on a logical derivation: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, where you were lenient with regard to its contact, meaning that it does not render people or items impure through contact when it is alive, you were stringent with regard to its milk, which is prohibited, even more so should this be true with regard to a person. An a fortiori inference would indicate that with regard to a person, where you were stringent about contact, as people can render other people and objects impure even when they are alive, one should be stricter. So isn’t it logical that you should be stringent with regard to his milk? This is as the verse states: “But this you shall not eat, of those that only chew the cud, or of those that only part the hoof; the camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:4). The somewhat superfluous word “it” teaches that it alone is impure, but the milk of bipeds is not impure; rather, it is kosher. Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude the milk of humans from the prohibition against consumption, as this issue does not apply equally to everyone, since only women produce milk, but I should not exclude from the prohibition human blood, which does apply equally to everyone. Consequently, the verse states “it” with regard to a camel, to say that it alone is impure, whereas the blood of bipeds is not impure, but rather is kosher. And Rav Sheshet said about this ruling: There is not even a rabbinic command to refrain from consuming human milk. Therefore, this presents a contradiction to the statement that a child who nurses beyond a certain age is like one who nurses from a non-kosher animal. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement that the milk is permitted is referring to when it has been removed from the woman’s body, and that statement, that the milk is forbidden, is referring to when it has not been removed. Fundamentally, human milk is a permitted substance. However, it is prohibited by rabbinic law for anyone other than a very young child to nurse directly from a woman’s breasts, and one who does so is considered like one who consumes milk from a non-kosher animal. And the opposite applies to blood: Human blood that has been removed from the body is forbidden, but if it has not yet been removed, it is permitted. As it is taught in a baraita: If some human blood was on a loaf of bread, one scrapes off the blood and then he may eat the bread. Since the blood was detached from the body, it is forbidden by rabbinic law, but if blood was between the teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern, as the blood is permitted if it has not been removed from the body. The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: A child may continue to nurse even for four or five years. But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if he can carry his package on his shoulder he can continue to nurse? The Gemara answers: This is not a contradiction, since both this and that are one, the same, measure, and the difference between them is only semantic. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

The Gemara cites other possible consequences of a mother’s behavior that could affect her children: A woman who engages in intercourse in a mill will have epileptic children; one who engages in intercourse on the ground will have long-necked children; one who steps on a donkey’s dung when pregnant will have bald children; one who eats mustard during pregnancy will have gluttonous children; one who eats garden cress [taḥlei] will have tearful children; one who eats fish brine [moninei] will have children with blinking eyes; one who eats soil will have ugly children; one who drinks intoxicating liquor will have black children; one who eats meat and drinks wine during pregnancy will have children who are healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant.

§ Rav Huna said: Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana tested us, by asking: If she says that she wants to nurse and he says that he does not want her to nurse but rather to give the child to a wet nurse, we accede to her desires, as she is the one suffering from engorgement of her breasts. However, if he says that he wants her to nurse and she says that she does not want to nurse, what is the halakha? He then narrowed the scope of the question: Anywhere that she is not accustomed, as the women of her family generally do not nurse their children but give them to wet nurses instead, we accede to her desires. However, if she is accustomed to nursing and he is not accustomed, i.e., the women of her family generally nurse their babies but the women in his family do not, what is the halakha: Do we follow his wishes to follow her family custom or do we follow her wishes to follow his family custom? 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.

§ Apropos statements by Rav Yitzḥak ben Ḥananya, the Gemara cites other statements in his name. Rav Yitzḥak bar Ḥananya said that Rav Huna said: All foods may be withheld from before the waiter, as one who is a waiter at the meal must wait until the guests have eaten from every food and only then may he eat, except for meat and wine, as these foods arouse the appetite more and the waiter would suffer if he could not eat them together with the other participants. Rav Ḥisda said: This is referring only to fatty meat and aged wine. Rava said: It applies to fatty meat all year round but aged wine only during the season of Tammuz, in the summer. Due to the heat, the aroma of the wine is more pervasive at that time. Rav Anan bar Taḥalifa said: I was once standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought him a cooked dish of mushrooms, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered due to the craving that I suffered. Rav Ashi said: I was once standing before Rav Kahana, and they brought him slices [gargelidei] of turnip in vinegar, and if he had not given me some, I would have been endangered. Rav Pappa said: Even a fragrant date should be offered to the waiter. The Gemara concludes: The principle of the matter is: One should offer some of everything that either has an aroma or that has a sharp taste to whomever is present when it is served, so that no one suffer by being unable to partake of these foods. It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer. Similarly, the Gemara relates an incident with regard to two pious men, and some say they were Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, the sons of Rav Ḥisda: One Sage would give the waiter something to eat before the meal, and the other Sage would give the waiter something to eat after the guests had eaten. With regard to the one who gave it to him earlier, Elijah spoke with him. But with regard to the one who gave it to him later, Elijah did not speak with him. The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The king’s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutra’s face blanch because he craved the food, so he took some of the food with his finger and put it in Mar Zutra’s mouth. The chief butler said to him: You have spoiled the king’s meal, as now he will not eat from it. The king’s soldiers who were there said to him: Why did you do this? He said to them: The one who makes such awful dishes is the one who actually spoiled the king’s food. They said to him: Why do you say this? He said to them: I saw something else, i.e., a leprous infection, in this meat. They checked and didn’t find anything. He took his finger and placed it on the food and said to them: Did you check here? They then checked that spot and found the infection. The Sages said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that you relied on a miracle and assumed that leprosy would in fact be found there? He said to them: I saw a leprous spirit hovering over the food and realized that it had this defect. The Gemara relates another incident with regard to a similar subject: A certain Roman said to a certain woman: Will you marry me? She said to him: No. In order to convince her, he went and brought pomegranates and peeled them and ate them in front of her and did not give her any of them. The aroma of the pomegranates caused her mouth to water, so she swallowed all of the saliva that caused her anguish, but he did not give her any until she became ill and bloated. Ultimately, he said to her: If I cure you, will you marry me? She said to him: Yes. He went and brought pomegranates, peeled them and ate them in front of her. He said to her: All of the saliva that causes you anguish, spit it out, spit it out. She did this until something like a green leaf came out of her, and then she was cured.

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that his wife may not derive benefit from marital relations with him, Beit Shammai say: He may maintain this situation for up to two weeks, but beyond that he must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. Beit Hillel say: He must divorce her if it continues beyond one week. Apropos the husband’s obligation to his wife regarding marital relations, the Gemara mentions other aspects of this issue: Students may leave their homes and travel in order to learn Torah without their wives’ permission for up to thirty days, and laborers may leave their homes without their wives’ permission for up to one week. The set interval defining the frequency of a husband’s conjugal obligation to his wife stated in the Torah (see Exodus 21:10), unless the couple stipulated otherwise, varies according to the man’s occupation and proximity to his home: Men of leisure, who do not work, must engage in marital relations every day, laborers must do so twice a week, donkey drivers once a week, camel drivers once every thirty days, and sailors once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabba bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e., modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.

§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal. This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently. § When is the ideal time for Torah scholars to fulfill their conjugal obligations? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The appropriate time for them is from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve, i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse “that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalms 1:3): Rav Yehuda said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman: This is referring to one who engages in marital relations, bringing forth his fruit, from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died. It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother. He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does. The proof for this is that initially it is written: “You bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. And ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later. After his wedding he went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile, as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What should we do? If he will divorce her, people will say: This poor woman waited and hoped for naught. If he will marry another woman to beget children, people will say: This one, who bears him children, is his wife and that one, who lives with him, is his mistress. Therefore, her husband pleaded with God to have mercy on her and she was cured. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home. He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥananya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived. Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this. Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family. The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long will you lead the life of a widow of a living man, living alone while your husband is in another place? She said to him: If he would listen to me, he would sit and study for another twelve years. When Rabbi Akiva heard this he said: I have permission to do this. He went back and sat for another twelve years in the study hall. When he came back he brought twenty-four thousand students with him. His wife heard and went out toward him to greet him. Her neighbors said: Borrow some clothes and wear them, as your current apparel is not appropriate to meet an important person. She said to them: “A righteous man understands the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10). When she came to him she fell on her face and kissed his feet. His attendants pushed her away as they did not know who she was, and he said to them: Leave her alone, as my Torah knowledge and yours is actually hers. In the meantime her father heard that a great man came to the town. He said: I will go to him. Maybe he will nullify my vow and I will be able to support my daughter. He came to him to ask about nullifying his vow, and Rabbi Akiva said to him: Did you vow thinking that this Akiva would become a great man? He said to him: If I had believed he would know even one chapter or even one halakha I would not have been so harsh. He said to him: I am he. Ben Kalba Savua fell on his face and kissed his feet and gave him half of his money. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva’s daughter did the same thing for ben Azzai, who was also a simple person, and she caused him to learn Torah in a similar way, by betrothing herself to him and sending him off to study. This explains the folk saying that people say: The ewe follows the ewe; the daughter’s actions are the same as her mother’s. On the same subject it is related: Rav Yosef, son of Rava, was sent by his father to the study hall to learn before the great Sage Rav Yosef. They agreed that he should sit for six years in the study hall. When three years had passed, the eve of Yom Kippur arrived and he said: I will go and see the members of my household, meaning his wife. His father heard and took a weapon, as if he were going to war, and went to meet him. According to one version he said to him: Did you remember your mistress, as you are abandoning your studies to see a woman? There are those who say that he said to him: Did you remember your dove? Since both father and son were involved in an argument, they were preoccupied and this Master did not eat the cessation meal before Yom Kippur and that Master also did not eat the cessation meal that day.

MISHNA: A woman who rebels against her husband is fined; her marriage contract is reduced by seven dinars each week. Rabbi Yehuda says: Seven half-dinars [terapa’ikin] each week. Until when does he reduce her marriage contract? Until the reductions are equivalent to her marriage contract, i.e., until he no longer owes her any money, at which point he divorces her without any payment. Rabbi Yosei says: He can always continue to deduct from the sum, even beyond that which is owed to her due to her marriage contract, so that if she will receive an inheritance from another source, he can collect the extra amount from her. And similarly, if a man rebels against his wife, he is fined and an extra three dinars a week are added to her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: Three terapa’ikin. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Against what does she rebel; what is the nature of the rebellion discussed in the mishna? Rav Huna said: Against engaging in marital relations. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Against the tasks she is obligated to perform for her husband. The Gemara clarifies this dispute. The mishna states: Similarly, if a man rebels against his wife. Granted, according to the one who says that the rebellion is against marital relations, it is well, as this type of rebellion can apply equally to a husband. However, according to the one who says that she rebels against performing tasks, is he subjugated to her to perform tasks? The Gemara answers: Yes, he is, as the mishna is discussing someone who says: I will not sustain and I will not support my wife.

§ With regard to this halakha, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the halakha of a rebellious woman applies? Ameimar said: The case is where she says: I want to be married to him, but I am currently refusing him because I want to cause him anguish due to a dispute between us. However, if she said: I am disgusted with him, we do not compel her to remain with him, as one should not be compelled to live with someone who disgusts her. Mar Zutra said: We do compel her to stay with him. It is related: There was an incident in which a woman rebelled, claiming that she was disgusted with her husband, and Mar Zutra compelled her to stay with him. And from this couple issued Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura. This demonstrates that even such coercion can cause a blessing. However, the Gemara concludes: That is not so. That case should not serve as a precedent, as there the positive outcome was due to heavenly assistance. Ordinarily, nothing good results from conjugal relations that the wife does not desire.

§ The mishna further taught: And he must give her half a kav of legumes as well as oil and fruit. The Gemara comments: And yet wine is not taught in the mishna. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: Wines are not allotted to a wife. And if you say that in the verse: “I will go after my lovers who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hosea 2:7), “drink [shikkuyai]” is apparently a reference to wine, which indicates that it is usual for a woman to receive wine, this is invalid, since actually shikkuyai is not referring to wine but rather to items that a woman desires [mishtokeket]. And what are these? Jewelry or other ornaments, not wine. Rabbi Yehuda of the village of Neviraya, and some say of the village of Nefor Ḥayil, interpreted a verse: From where is it derived that one does not allot wines for a woman? As it is stated: “So Hannah rose up after she had eaten in Shiloh and after he had drunk” (I Samuel 1:9). It states: “He had drunk,” and not: She had drunk. This teaches that although she ate, she did not drink wine. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, by the same reasoning, should the phrase “she had eaten,” which is in the feminine, indeed be interpreted to mean that only she ate, and that he did not eat? The Gemara answers: We say this interpretation from the fact that the verse changed its language. Since the verse was already dealing with her, what is the reason that it changed the terminology and did not state: And had drunk, in the feminine? One can learn from this that “he had drunk” means that he drank, but she did not drink. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a woman is accustomed to wine, she is given wine. The Gemara explains: If the woman is accustomed to wine it is different, as Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: If a woman is accustomed to drinking wine, she is given one cup, and if she is not accustomed to wine, she is given two cups. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel saying? His statement is the opposite of what one would logically expect. Abaye said: This is what he is saying: If she is accustomed to wine, then in the presence of her husband she is given two cups, and if she is not in the presence of her husband she is given one cup. If she is not accustomed to drinking wine, then in the presence of her husband she is given only one cup, and if she is not in the presence of her husband she is not given wine at all. And if you wish, say instead: If she is accustomed to wine, she is given wine, but not for drinking, rather for meat pudding [tzikei], made with wine, flour, and leftover meat in a pot. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An incident occurred involving the daughter-in-law of Nakdimon ben Guryon, whose husband had died. The Sages apportioned for her from his estate two se’a of wine for pudding, from one Shabbat eve to another. She said to them, as a blessing out of gratitude: So may you apportion for your own daughters an amount as large as this. It was taught: She was a widow waiting for her yavam, and consequently, the Sages did not answer amen after her blessing, as they did not want their daughters to reach her unfortunate state. It was taught in a baraita: One cup of wine is good for a woman; two cups is a disgrace, as she will start to become drunk; after three cups, she will become lustful and verbally request sexual intercourse, which is unseemly; after four cups of wine, she will even request intercourse from a donkey in the marketplace, as at this stage she is so drunk that she is not particular about with whom she has relations. Rava said: They taught that a woman should not drink much wine only if her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, we have no problem with it. If she feels an urge for intercourse her husband is available. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the case of Hannah was one in which her husband was with her, and yet this episode is cited as a source for the halakha that a woman should not drink wine. The Gemara answers: The case of a guest is different, as Rav Huna said: From where is it derived that a guest is prohibited from engaging in conjugal relations? As it is stated: “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah; and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her” (I Samuel 1:19). This verse indicates that now, after they returned home, yes, they engaged in relations; at the outset, when they were still in Shiloh, no, they did not. Therefore, Hannah did not drink wine in Shiloh. The Gemara relates: Abaye’s wife, Ḥoma, came before Rava after Abaye died, as Rava was the local judge. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me, as I am entitled to be sustained by Abaye’s heirs. Rava apportioned sustenance for her. She subsequently said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. Rava said to her: I know that Naḥmani, i.e., Abaye, did not drink wine. Since you were not accustomed to drinking wine during your husband’s lifetime, you are not entitled to it after his death. She said to him: By the Master’s life, this is not correct. In fact, he would give me wine to drink in cups [shufrazei] as large as this. She gestured with her hands to show how large the cups were. While she was showing him the size of the cups, her arm became uncovered, and she was so beautiful that it was as though a light had shined in the courtroom. Rava arose, went home, and requested intercourse from his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who was just now in the courtroom? Noticing his unusual behavior, she suspected that there must have been a woman in the court. He said to her: Ḥoma, Abaye’s wife, was there. Upon hearing this, Rava’s wife went after Ḥoma and struck her with the lock of a chest [kulpei deshida] until she drove her out of the entire city of Meḥoza, saying to her: You have already killed three men, as Abaye was your third husband, and now you come to kill another one, my husband Rava? Since you showed him your beauty, he will want to marry you.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, disagreeing with the tanna of the mishna: She eats on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat. Granted, according to the one who says that it means actual eating, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: And Shabbat, i.e., she dines with him also on the day of Shabbat. However, according to the one who says that it is referring to sexual relations, are there sexual relations on the day of Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Huna say: The Jewish people are holy and therefore do not engage in sexual relations during the day? The Gemara answers that Rava said: If they are in a dark house, it is permitted to engage in relations even during the day.

MISHNA: A lost object found by a wife and the wife’s earnings belong to her husband. And with regard to her inheritance, the husband enjoys the profits of this property in her lifetime. If she is humiliated or injured, the perpetrator is liable to pay compensation for her humiliation and her degradation, as relevant. This payment belongs to her. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When it is an injury that is in a concealed part of the woman’s body, she receives two parts, i.e., two-thirds, of the payment for humiliation and degradation, and the husband receives one part, i.e., one-third, as the injury affects him as well. And when it is an injury that is in an exposed part of her body, he receives two parts, as he suffers public humiliation due to her condition, and she receives one part. His payment should be given to him immediately. And with her portion, land should be purchased with it, and he enjoys the profits of that property.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen. Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him. She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together. She said to him: My teacher, do you remember when you signed on my marriage contract? He said to his students: I remember that when I signed on the marriage contract of this woman, and I read in it, it listed a thousand thousands, i.e., one million gold dinars as a dowry from her father’s house, aside from that which was promised her from her father-in-law. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai cried and said: How fortunate are you, Israel, for when Israel performs the will of the Omnipresent, no nation or tongue can rule over them; and when Israel does not perform the will of the Omnipresent, He delivers them into the hand of a lowly nation. Not only are they delivered into the hand of a lowly nation, but even into the hand of the animals of a lowly nation, as in the pitiful instance of Nakdimon’s daughter. The recorded incident implies that Nakdimon lost all of his wealth after having failed to use it for acts of kindness. The Gemara asks: And did not Nakdimon ben Guryon perform charity? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Nakdimon ben Guryon that when he would leave his home to go to the study hall, there were fine woolen garments his attendants would spread underneath him to walk on, and with his blessing, the poor would come and fold them up from behind him for themselves? Clearly he gave abundant charity. The Gemara offers two possible explanations: If you wish, say that he acted that way for his own honor, to demonstrate that he considered the exorbitant expense trivial. And if you wish, say that as he should have done, he did not do. As people say, according to the camel is the burden. The stronger the camel, the heavier the load it must bear. Even if he gave altruistically, Nakdimon ben Guryon did not give as much as he was expected to give. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:8) with regard to the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said in the form of an oath: I pray that I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if I did not see her gathering barley kernels from between the hooves of horses in Akko. I recited this verse about her: “If you know not, O you fairest among women, go your way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed your kids, beside the shepherds’ tents” (Song of Songs 1:8). Do not read it as “your kids [gediyotayikh]” but rather read it as your bodies [geviyotayikh]. This woman is compelled to follow the sheep to the pastures in order to sustain her own body from the leftovers of their food.

Concerning this issue, the Sages taught: “Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks, as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary. For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is deficient for him.” The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village. The Gemara relates another incident concerning charity. A certain person came before Rabbi Neḥemya to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: I usually dine on fatty meat and aged wine. Rabbi Neḥemya asked him: Is it your wish to belittle yourself and partake together with me in a meal of lentils, which is my regular food? He partook with him of lentils, and he died, since he was not accustomed to this food. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Woe to this one who was killed by Neḥemya. The Gemara wonders: On the contrary, Rabbi Neḥemya should have said: Woe to Neḥemya who killed this one. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Neḥemya meant that it was he, the pauper, who should not have pampered himself so much. The poor man was to blame for his own death. His excessive indulgence rendered him incapable of digesting simple foods such as lentils. The Gemara relates another story. A certain person came before Rava to request charity. He said to him: On what do you normally dine? He said to him: On a fattened hen and aged wine. He said to him: And were you not concerned for causing a burden to the community by expecting such opulent foods? He said to him: Is that to say that it is from their funds that I eat? I eat from the support of the Merciful One. This would seem to be a reasonable argument, as we already learned that in the verse “the eyes of all wait for You, and You give them their food in its time” (Psalms 145:15), the phrase: At their time, is not stated, rather “in its time.” This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives each and every one his personally appropriate sustenance at its proper time, and the community is merely His agent in discharging His will. Therefore, the man is justified in maintaining his standard. In the meantime, while they were talking, Rava’s sister, who had not seen him for thirteen years, came. And as a gift, she brought him a fattened hen and aged wine. Rava said to himself: What is this that happened in front of me that suddenly I am brought food that I do not usually eat? He then understood that this was a providential response to what he had earlier said to the man. Rava said to him: I have responded [na’aneti] to your contention. Arise and eat. § The Sages taught: If an individual does not have sufficient means of support and does not want to be supported from charity funds, the charities provide him funds as a loan in a dignified manner, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a gift; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They give him funds as a gift, and then they go back and give the funds to him as a loan. The Gemara wonders about the Rabbis’ ruling: How can we give it as a gift? After all, he does not want to take it as a gift. The Gemara answers that Rava said: The Rabbis’ instruction is to begin discussions with him by offering the assistance as a gift. If he refuses, the charities give it to him as a loan, but they treat it as a gift and refrain from attempting to collect a debt. If he has sufficient funds of his own but does not want to support himself by his own funds without the assistance of charity, the charities give him aid as a gift, and then they go back and collect the debt from him. The Gemara asks: How can the administrators of the fund go back and collect from him? Would their efforts not be in vain, as subsequently he would not take their support, knowing that he would still have to pay for it? Rav Pappa said: The charities collect the accrued debt from his estate only after his death. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says, disputing the opinion of the Rabbis: If he has sufficient funds and does not want to be supported by his own means, they do not get involved with him, as the community is not obligated to support him. If he does not have and does not want to be supported from charity, the charities say to him: Bring collateral and take a loan, so that his mindset should be raised for him, with the false impression that he is not receiving a handout. The Gemara cites a dispute related to the previous discussions. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the double expression in the Torah: “You shall open your hand to him [ha’avet ta’avitenu]” (Deuteronomy 15:8). “Ha’avet”; this is referring to one who does not have funds and does not want to be supported by charity. The policy is that the charities provide him funds as a loan and go back and give the funds to him as a gift. “Ta’avitenu”; this is referring to one who has means and does not want to support himself. The policy is that the charities provide money as a gift, and then they go back and collect from his estate after his death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The baraita continues: And the Rabbis say: If he has money and does not want to support himself, they do not get involved with him. The baraita asks: How then do I uphold the double expression “ha’avet ta’avitenu”? The baraita answers: The Torah spoke in the language of men, and the double form does not have halakhic significance. The Gemara recounts another incident related to charity. Mar Ukva had a pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed every day to toss four dinars for him into the slot adjacent to the hinge of the door. One day the poor person said: I will go and see who is doing this service for me. That day Mar Ukva was delayed in the study hall, and his wife came with him to distribute the charity. When the people in the poor man’s house saw that someone was turning the door, the pauper went out after them to see who it was. Mar Ukva and his wife ran away from before him so that he would not determine their identity, and they entered a certain furnace whose fire was already raked over and tempered but was still burning. Mar Ukva’s legs were being singed, and his wife said to him: Raise your legs and set them on my legs, which are not burned. Understanding that only his wife was spared from burns, because she was more worthy, Mar Ukva became distraught. By way of explanation, she said to him: I am normally found inside the house, and when I give charity, my assistance is ready and immediate, insofar as I distribute actual food items. Since you distribute money, which is not as readily helpful, my aid is greater than yours. The Gemara asks: And what is all this? Why did they go to such extreme lengths to avoid being discovered? The Gemara answers: It is as Mar Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Huna bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is preferable for a person to deliver himself into a fiery furnace so that he not whiten the face of, i.e., embarrass, his friend in public. From where do we derive this? From the conduct of Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man, whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:24–25). Although Tamar was taken to be executed by burning, she privately and directly appealed to Judah, rather than publicly identifying him as the father of her unborn children and causing him embarrassment. The Gemara relates another incident involving Mar Ukva. Mar Ukva had another pauper in his neighborhood, and Mar Ukva was accustomed to send to him four hundred dinars every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he sent the money to him by the hand of his son. The son returned and said to him: The poor individual does not need the charity. Mar Ukva said: What did you see that prompted you to say this? He said to him: I saw them spilling old wine on the ground for him, to give the room a pleasant smell. Mar Ukva said: If he is pampered this much and requires even this luxury, then he needs even more money. He doubled the funds and sent them to him. When Mar Ukva was dying, he said: Bring me my charity records. He found that it was written there that he had given seven thousand fine, siankei, i.e., gold, dinars, to charity. He said: My provisions are light, and the way is far. This meager sum is insufficient for me to merit the World-to-Come. He got up and spent half of his remaining money on charity. The Gemara asks: How did he do this? But didn’t Rabbi Ilai say: In Usha they instituted: One who spends money on charity, he should not spend more than one-fifth of his money for this purpose. The Gemara answers: This restriction on giving too much charity applies only while he is alive, because perhaps he will descend from his holdings and become destitute. Therefore, for his own financial security, he should never distribute more than one-fifth. But after death, we have no problem with it. One need not save money in his estate anymore. The Gemara recounts more stories related to charity. Rabbi Abba would wrap coins in his scarf and toss the money behind him over his shoulder. And he would place himself at the homes of the poor without being seen, so the poor could receive the aid without being embarrassed. And he would incline his eyes just enough so he could safeguard the handouts from swindlers who might take the money dishonestly. Rabbi Ḥanina knew a certain pauper and was accustomed to send to him four dinars on every Shabbat eve. One day he sent it in the hand of his wife. She came back home and said to him: The man does not need charity. Rabbi Ḥanina asked her: What did you see that prompted you to say this? She said to him: I heard them saying to him inside the house: With what do you normally dine: Silver, i.e., white, tablecloths [telei] or gold, i.e., colored, tablecloths? Clearly, then, they are not entitled to charity. Rabbi Ḥanina said: This is what Rabbi Elazar said: Come and let us appreciate the swindlers who ask for charity that they do not need, because were it not for them, who command our attention and receive our charity, we would be sinning every day in failing to properly support the truly poor, as it is stated: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you will not give him; and he cry to the Lord against you, and it be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 15:9). Because the swindlers take our money in the name of charity, we have an excuse of sorts for failing to fully meet the needs of the truly poor. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: With regard to anyone who averts his eyes from the obligation to give charity, it is as if he engages in idol worship. It is written here concerning charity: “Beware that there be not a base [beliya’al] thought in your heart…and you will not give him” (Deuteronomy 15:9), and it is written there concerning idolatry: “Certain base [beliya’al] fellows have gone out” (Deuteronomy 13:14). Just as there, in the latter verse, the word “base [beliya’al]” is referring to idol worship, so too here, this expression indicates a sin on the scale of idol worship. The Gemara cites a baraita relating to swindlers who collect charity. The Sages taught: One who falsely blinds his eye, and one who bloats his stomach as if he were sick, and one who falsely crushes [mekape’aḥ] his leg, in order to benefit dishonestly from charity, will not depart from the world before he comes to this same plight, and he will truly suffer from the ailment that he feigned. More generally, one who receives charity and does not need it, his end will be that he will not depart from the world before he comes to this state of actually needing charity.

The Gemara recounts an interaction between Rav Anan and Rav Huna. Rav Anan sent the following letter to Rav Huna: Huna, our friend, we wish you peace. When this woman bearing this letter comes before you, provide her one-tenth of her father’s estate. Rav Sheshet was sitting before him, and Rav Huna said to him: Go and say to Rav Anan my reply. Knowing that Rav Sheshet may be hesitant to relay the sharp language of the reply, Rav Huna cautioned him: And whoever does not say to him my exact words is in a state of excommunication: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzeiḥa? Rav Sheshet went before Rav Anan and reverentially said to him, addressing him in the third person: My Master is a teacher, but Rav Huna is the teacher of the teacher. Moreover, he readily excommunicates whoever does not say to him, i.e., to you, my teacher, his precise message, and if it were not that he would excommunicate me, I would not say his words: Anan, Anan, should the one-tenth be provided from real estate or from movable property? And, incidentally, tell me who sits at the head in the house of a marzeiḥa? Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva to consult with him about Rav Huna’s reply. He said to him: Let the Master see how Rav Huna sent me an offensive message, addressing me as Anan, Anan. Moreover, with regard to this word marzeiḥa in the letter that he sent me, I do not know what it is. Mar Ukva said to him: Say to me, my friend [izi], how the incident itself happened. What are the particulars of your exchange that brought about this end result? He said to him: Such and such was the incident, and Rav Anan related the details to Mar Ukva. He said to him: A man who does not know what a marzeiḥa is sends a letter to Rav Huna addressing him as Huna, our friend? It is not your place to take such liberties in your correspondence with him, and Rav Huna was justifiably offended. The Gemara explains: What is a marzeiḥa? A mourner, as it is written: “For so says the Lord: Enter not into the house of mourning [marze’aḥ], neither go to lament, neither bemoan them” (Jeremiah 16:5). Rabbi Abbahu said concerning the same topic: From where is it derived that a mourner sits at the head? As it is stated: “I chose out their way, and sat as chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that would comfort [yenaḥem] the mourners” (Job 29:25). The Gemara challenges the proof: The word yenaḥem implies one comforting others and not the mourner being comforted. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Since it is written without vowels, the word can be read as if it were written “would be comforted [yinnaḥem],” which describes the mourner who is being comforted. Mar Zutra said: That the mourner sits at the head may be derived from here: “And the revelry [mirzaḥ] of those who stretched themselves shall pass away [sar]” (Amos 6:7). The word mirzaḥ may alternatively be read as two distinct words: Bitter [mar] and flustered [zaḥ], and the word sar has a homonym that means ruler. Read this way, the verse indicates: One who is bitter and flustered, i.e., the mourner, is made the ruler of those who sit, i.e., the visitors who come to comfort him and sit with him. Therefore, he sits at the head. The Gemara reports the conclusion of the earlier discussion: Rava said: The halakha is that one may collect from the inheritors from real estate and not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for support, referring to the dowry.

MISHNA: And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [ḥalla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows. And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; or she spins wool in the public marketplace; or she speaks with every man she encounters. Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his, i.e., her husband’s, parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. And who is defined as a loud woman? When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

§ The mishna stated: And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who goes out and her head is uncovered. The Gemara asks: The prohibition against a woman going out with her head uncovered is not merely a custom of Jewish women. Rather, it is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful: “And he shall uncover the head of the woman” (Numbers 5:18). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From here there is a warning to Jewish women not to go out with an uncovered head, since if the Torah states that a woman suspected of adultery must have her head uncovered, this indicates that a married woman must generally cover her head. The Gemara explains: By Torah law, if she covers her head with her basket [kilta], it seems well and is sufficient. But by precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom, even if her head is covered by her basket this is also prohibited; she requires a substantial head covering. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If she covers her head with her basket, there is no violation of the prohibition against having an uncovered head. Rabbi Zeira discussed it: Where is the woman that Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to? If we say he means that she appears this way in the marketplace, this is a violation of precepts of Jewish women, as explained previously. And if you say rather that he means she appears this way in her own courtyard, if so, you have not allowed any daughter of our father Abraham to remain with her husband, since most women are not careful to cover their heads completely inside their own courtyards. Abaye said, and some say that Rav Kahana said: Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to when she walks from one courtyard to another courtyard or via an alleyway. Although these places are not considered public areas, strangers may still be present in them.

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between a man and a woman in this regard, for it is amenable to her to be with any man, flawed though he may be, as taught by Reish Lakish: As Reish Lakish said that women say: It is better to dwell together as two [tan du] than to dwell alone as if a widow. Women will prefer any marriage to remaining single. Similarly, Abaye said that women say: One whose husband is small as an ant, nevertheless places her seat among the noblewomen, as she considers herself important by virtue of the mere fact that she is married. Rav Pappa said a different maxim expressing a similar idea: One whose husband is a wool comber [nafsa], a lowly occupation, calls him to sit with her at the entrance to the house, as she is proud of him and happy to be married. Similarly, Rav Ashi said: Even one whose husband is lowly [kalsa] does not require lentils for her pot. She is so happy with the simple fact that she is married that she does not mind even if he does not provide her with food. The Gemara comments that it is taught: And all of these women who have lowly husbands yet appear so satisfied with their marriage commit adultery and attribute the birth of the children to their husbands. This is another reason why they are so keen to be married.

§ The mishna teaches that all blemishes that disqualify priests disqualify women’s betrothal as well. The Sage taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 87:9): To these, they added several additional blemishes applying only to women: Sweat, a mole, and a foul odor from the mouth. The Gemara poses a question: And do these blemishes not also disqualify priests? Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to blemishes of animals (Bekhorot 41a): The old, the sick, and the filthy? And it was taught in a different mishna (Bekhorot 43a): These blemishes stated concerning animals, whether they are permanent or whether they are temporary, render people, i.e., priests, disqualified as well. This shows that filth and sweat disqualify priests too. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This is not difficult. Here, where the baraita states that these blemishes do not disqualify priests, it is referring to removable sweat, which can be washed off. There, the mishna that considers it is a disqualifying blemish for priests, it is speaking of sweat that is not removable. Rav Ashi said that the entire question is unsubstantiated. Have you raised a contradiction between a ruling concerning sweat and a ruling concerning filth? The term filthy indicates that there is a permanently foul odor, which disqualifies both animals and priests. But there, with regard to priests who suffer from foul odors due to sweat, it is possible to remove it in the short term by use of wine vinegar. And the priest can also temporarily cure himself from a foul odor of the mouth, as it is possible to hold pepper in his mouth to alleviate the odor and proceed to perform the service. But with regard to a woman it is not possible for her to utilize these remedies on a constant basis. Consequently, this blemish disqualifies women and not priests. The baraita stated that a mole is a blemish for a woman but not for a priest. The Gemara poses a question: What are the circumstances with regard to this mole? If it has hair growing in it, both here and there, with regard to both women and priests, it is disqualifying. If it does not have hair in it, the following distinction applies: If it is a large mole, both here and there it is disqualifying. If it is a small mole, both here and there it is not disqualifying, as it is taught in a baraita: A mole that has hair in it, this is a blemish. With regard to one that does not have a hair in it, if it is large, this is a blemish. If it is small, this is not a blemish. The tanna proceeds to ask: And what is considered large? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: As large as the size of an Italian issar, a small coin. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The case in the baraita discusses a mole that is positioned on her forehead. Despite the mole’s small size, its prominent location makes her appear very ugly. The Gemara asks: If it is on her forehead, it is something that he has seen and accepted. Since it is visible, he knew about it before agreeing to marry her. Therefore, he cannot later divorce her due to a blemish of this kind. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a mole that is positioned under the cap that is on top of her head. Sometimes it is visible and sometimes it is not visible, and he may not have seen it in advance. It is necessary to teach us that a mole of this kind is considered a blemish. Rav Ḥisda said: I heard this matter from a great man, and who was this great man? Rabbi Sheila was the great man. He said: If a dog bit a woman, and the place of the wound developed into a scar, this is a blemish. Rav Ḥisda further said: A deep voice in a woman, this is a blemish, as it is stated: “For your voice is sweet and your appearance pleasant” (Song of Songs 2:14). Rabbi Natan Bira’a taught: A handbreadth between a woman’s breasts. The amora’im have a dispute concerning the meaning of Rabbi Natan Bira’a’s statement: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, thought to say before Rav Ashi that this means a handbreadth between a woman’s breasts is perfection and considered beautiful. Rav Ashi said to him: This baraita is taught with regard to blemishes, and it means that if her breasts are separated by a gap this wide, it is a blemish. The Gemara asks: And how much of a gap is considered normal? Abaye said: The width of three fingers. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Any woman whose breasts are larger than those of other women, this is a blemish. The Gemara poses a question: And how much larger must they be to be considered a blemish? Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If they are a handbreadth larger than the norm. The Gemara inquires: And is there a case like this? Is it possible for a woman to have such large breasts? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said: I once saw a certain Arab woman who flung her breasts behind her and nursed her child. § Since the Gemara quoted a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s grandson, the Gemara cites another exposition in his name. The verse states: “And of Zion it shall be said, this man and this man were born in her, and the Most High shall establish her” (Psalms 87:5). Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: Both the man who was actually born in Zion and the one who looks forward to seeing her are equally considered sons of Zion. Abaye said: And one of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael is superior to two of us, Babylonians. Rava said: And one of us Babylonians, when he ascends to Eretz Yisrael, is superior to two people born and raised in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara cites a proof for Rava’s claim: As Rabbi Yirmeya, when he was here, in Babylonia, did not even know what the Sages say. He was not considered an important scholar. But when he ascended there, it was he, and not the other Sages of Eretz Yisrael, who called us foolish Babylonians. Evidently, he became even greater than they were.

MISHNA: In the case of a man who developed blemishes after marriage, the court does not force him to divorce his wife. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes, which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court does force him to divorce her.

MISHNA: And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce her: One afflicted with boils; or one who has a polyp; or one who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. Whether he had these defects before they got married, or whether they developed after they got married, the court forces them to divorce. And with regard to all of these, Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, she can nevertheless demand a divorce and say: I thought I could accept this issue but now I realize I cannot accept it.

And the Rabbis say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. The Sages said: She can say: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform ḥalitza with her.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: A certain Elder from among the residents of Jerusalem told me that there are twenty-four types of patients afflicted with boils, and with regard to all of them the Sages said that sexual relations are harmful to them, and those afflicted with ra’atan, a severe skin disease characterized by extreme weakness and trembling, are harmed even more than all of the others. The Gemara asks: From where and how does this disease come about? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who let blood and immediately afterward engaged in sexual relations will have weak [vitaykin] children. If both of them let blood and then engaged in sexual relations, he will have children afflicted with ra’atan. Rav Pappa said in response: We said this only if he did not taste anything between bloodletting and intercourse, but if he tasted something we have no problem with it, as it is not dangerous. The Gemara inquires: What are the symptoms of ra’atan? His eyes water, his nose runs, drool comes out of his mouth, and flies rest upon him. The Gemara further inquires: And what is his cure to remove the insect found in his head, which is associated with this illness? Abaye said: One takes pila and ladanum [lodana], which are types of grasses; and the ground shell of a nut; and shavings of smoothed hides; and artemisia [kelil malka]; and the calyx of a red date palm. And one cooks them together and brings the patient into a marble house, i.e., one that is completely sealed. And if there is no marble house available, the one performing the treatment brings the patient into a house whose walls have the thickness of seven bricks and one small brick. And the one performing the treatment pours three hundred cups of this mixture on the patient’s head until his skull is soft, and then he tears open the patient’s skull to expose his brain, and brings four myrtle leaves and lifts up each time one foot of the insect that is found on the patient’s brain, and places one leaf under each foot of the insect so as to prevent it from attempting to cling to his brain when it is forcibly removed, and subsequently takes it with tweezers. And he then burns the insect, because if he does not burn it, it will return to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan would announce: Be careful of the flies found on those afflicted with ra’atan, as they are carriers of the disease. Rabbi Zeira would not sit in a spot where the wind blew from the direction of someone afflicted with ra’atan. Rabbi Elazar would not enter the tent of one afflicted with ra’atan, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would not eat eggs from an alley in which someone afflicted with ra’atan lived. Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would attach himself to them and study Torah, saying as justification the verse: “The Torah is a loving hind and a graceful doe” (Proverbs 5:19). If it bestows grace on those who learn it, does it not protect them from illness? When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding, as he is a righteous man and deserves to die in the manner he sees fit. The Angel of Death went and appeared to him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Give me your knife that you use to kill mortals, lest you frighten me on the way. He gave it to him. When he arrived there, in paradise, he lifted Rabbi Yehoshua so he could see his place, and he showed it to him. Rabbi Yehoshua jumped and fell into that other side, thereby escaping into paradise. The Angel of Death grabbed him by the corner of his cloak. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: I swear that I will not come with you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If he ever in his life requested dissolution concerning an oath he had taken, he must return to this world with the Angel of Death, as he can have his oath dissolved this time also. If he did not ever request dissolution of an oath, he need not return. Since Rabbi Yehoshua had in fact never requested dissolution of an oath, he was allowed to stay in paradise. The Angel of Death said to him: At least give me my knife back. However, he did not give it to him, as he did not want any more people to die. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Give it to him, as it is necessary to kill the created beings; death is the way of the world. Elijah the Prophet announced before him: Make way for the son of Levi, make way for the son of Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went and found in paradise Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai sitting on thirteen golden stools [takhtekei]. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: Are you the son of Levi? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Was a rainbow ever seen in your days? He said: Yes. Rabbi Shimon retorted: If so, you are not the son of Levi, as he is a completely righteous man. During the lifetimes of completely righteous people no rainbows are visible, as they are a sign that the world deserves to be destroyed by a flood; whereas the merit of the righteous protects the world from such things. The Gemara comments: And that is not so, for there was no rainbow seen at all during the lifetime of Rabbi Yehoshua, but he thought: I do not want to take credit for myself by presenting myself as such a righteous person. The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa was a friend of the Angel of Death and would see him frequently. When Rabbi Ḥanina was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding. He went before him and appeared to him. He said to the angel: Leave me for thirty days until I have reviewed my studies, for they say: Happy is he who comes here, to paradise, with his learning in his hand. He left him, and after thirty days he again went and appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Give me your knife, lest you frighten me on the way. The Angel of Death said to him: Do you wish to do to me as your friend Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did, and escape? He said to him: Bring a Torah scroll and see: Is there anything written in it that I have not fulfilled? I am therefore worthy of entering Paradise alive, as did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. He said to him: But did you attach yourself to those afflicted with ra’atan and study Torah, as he did? The Gemara comments: And even so, despite the fact that he was not equal to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, when he passed away a pillar of fire separated him from everyone. And it is learned as a tradition that a pillar of fire separates in this manner only for one in a generation or for two in a generation. Due to the pillar of fire they could not go near Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa to attend to his burial. Rabbi Alexandri approached him and said: Make the pillar of fire disappear in honor of the Sages. He did not pay attention to him. He said: Make it go away in honor of your father. Again he did not pay attention to him. Finally he said: Make it go away in your own honor, at which point the pillar disappeared. Abaye said: The purpose of the pillar of fire is to exclude him from the company of those who have not fulfilled even one letter of the Torah. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to him: It comes to exclude him from the Master himself, who does not have a guardrail for his roof. Rav Adda bar Mattana took this opportunity to rebuke Abaye. The Gemara comments: And that is not so as he in fact did have a guardrail, but the wind had just blown it off at that time. Rabbi Ḥanina said: For what reason are there no people afflicted with ra’atan in Babylonia? Because the Babylonians eat beets [teradin] and drink beer made from the hizmei plant. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason are there no lepers in Babylonia? Because they eat beets, drink beer, and bathe in the waters of the Euphrates, all of which are good for the body.

MISHNA: With regard to one who died and left behind a wife, and a creditor to whom he owed money, and heirs, all of whom claim payment from his property, and he had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others, Rabbi Tarfon says: The deposit or the loan will be given to the weakest one of them, i.e., the one most in need of the money. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. If the halakha is that it belongs to one party, one follows the halakha and leaves aside considerations of mercy. Rather, the halakha is that the money will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath. They therefore have a more absolute right than the others to their father’s property. If the deceased left behind produce that was detached from the ground, whoever first took possession of them as compensation for what was owed, whether the creditor, the wife, or the heirs, acquired the produce. If the wife acquired this produce and it was worth more than the payment of her marriage contract, or the creditor acquired this produce and it was worth more than the value of his debt, what should be done with the surplus? Rabbi Tarfon says: It will be given to the weakest one of them, either the creditor or the wife, depending on the circumstances. Rabbi Akiva says: One is not merciful in judgment. Rather, it will be given to the heirs, as all people who wish to exact payment from orphans require an oath before they collect their debt, but the heirs do not require an oath.

The Gemara relates: There were judges who judged a case of this kind in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, and Reish Lakish reversed their action. He dismissed the judges’ decision and restored the money to the heirs, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan criticized his ruling and said to him: You acted in this case like one acts with regard to a ruling of Torah law, where any incorrect action taken by the court must be corrected. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that if one erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is not revoked. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, it can be explained that according to everyone, where the judge erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, the decision is revoked, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague, but not in his disputes with his teacher, and Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s teacher. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva even in his disputes with his teacher. And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in his disputes with his colleague but not in his disputes with his teacher. And here they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s teacher, and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that Rabbi Tarfon was his colleague. And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that Rabbi Tarfon was Rabbi Akiva’s colleague, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that the principle that the law is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva was stated as the halakha. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that what was stated was that one is inclined to follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, although Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is followed ab initio, the halakha was never established conclusively in accordance with it. As such, if judges went against the principle that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva in opposition to his colleague, the Sages do not revoke their decision. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan seized a cow of orphans from an alley because the orphans’ father owed them money. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan for judgment, and he said to them: It is well that you seized the cow and it is yours, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon. They subsequently came before Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said to them: Go and return the cow to the orphans. They again came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, complaining that Reish Lakish had told them they must give back the cow, in opposition to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling. He said to them: What can I do, as one whose stature corresponds to my stature disagrees with me, and I cannot dismiss his opinion.

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Ḥama: With regard to one who has incumbent upon himself the obligation of his wife’s marriage contract and also owes money to a creditor, and he possesses land and possesses money, the obligation to the creditor is settled with the payment of money, whereas the debt to the woman of her marriage contract is settled with the payment of land, this one in accordance with his law, and that one in accordance with her law. Since the creditor gave him money, it is fitting that he should receive ready cash in return. The woman, in contrast, did not give him anything but relied upon the lien on his land, so she is therefore given land. And if there is only one plot of land, and it is adequate for the payment of only one debt, we give it to the creditor, and we do not give it to the woman. What is the reason for this? Even more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married. Women do not get married because they wish to receive their marriage contract. It is better to give preference to the creditor so that he will not lose out, so as not to discourage people from lending money. Rav Pappa said to Rav Ḥama: Is it correct that you say in the name of Rava: With regard to one who owes money and has land, and the creditor comes and demands from him his money, and the debtor says to him: Go and take the amount you are owed from the land, we say to him: Go and sell the land yourself and give him money? Rav Ḥama said to him: I did not say this in the name of Rava. Rav Pappa replied: Tell me the incident itself, what happened and what exactly occurred that caused this opinion to be attributed to Rava. Rav Ḥama said to him: The debtor was one who attached his money to a gentile. He possessed money, but he claimed that this money belonged to a gentile and therefore could not be demanded from him. This man acted improperly, and consequently, the Sages acted improperly with him by forcing him to sell the land. Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: According to your opinion, that you say the repayment of a creditor is a mitzva, if the debtor said: It is not amenable to me to perform a mitzva, what would be the halakha? If there is no obligation to repay a loan other than to perform a mitzva, then what happens if someone is not interested in performing the mitzva? He said to him: We already learned this halakha in a baraita: In what case is this statement said, that one is liable to receive forty lashes for committing a transgression? It is said with regard to negative mitzvot. However, with regard to positive mitzvot, for example, if the court says to someone: Perform the mitzva of the sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of the palm branch, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs, in order to force him to perform the mitzva. The payment of a debt is a positive mitzva, and one who refuses to pay a debt can be compelled to do so in this manner.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: All tasks that a wife performs for her husband, a widow performs for the husband’s heirs, except for filling his cup; and making his bed; and washing his face, hands, and feet, which are expressions of affection that a woman performs specifically for her husband. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All tasks that a Canaanite slave performs for his master, a student performs for his teacher, except for untying his shoe, a demeaning act that was typically performed by slaves and would not be appropriate for a student to do. Rava said: We said this only if the teacher and the student are in a place where people are not familiar with the student and he could be mistaken for a slave. However, in a place where people are familiar with the student, we have no problem with it as everyone knows that he is not a slave. Rav Ashi said: And in a place where people are not familiar with the student, we said this halakha only if he is not donning phylacteries, but if he is donning phylacteries, we have no problem with it. A slave does not don phylacteries, and since this student is donning phylacteries, even if he unties his teacher’s shoes he will not be mistaken for a slave. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who prevents his student from serving him, it is as if he withheld from him kindness, as it is stated: “To him that is ready to faint [lamas], from his friend kindness is due” (Job 6:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets this to mean that one who prevents [memis] another from performing acts on his behalf, prevents him from performing the mitzva of kindness. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He even removes from the student the fear of Heaven, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “Even to one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty.” Rabbi Elazar said: In the case of a widow who seized movable property for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized and it remains in her possession. That halakha is also taught in a baraita: A widow who seized movable property to provide for her sustenance, that which she seized, she seized.

§ The mishna teaches that these specific women are not entitled to payment of a marriage contract. Shmuel said: They taught this only with regard to the principal of the marriage contract, which the Sages instituted for all women, amounting to one hundred dinars for a widow and two hundred dinars for a virgin. However, the additional sum listed in the marriage contract, which their husband specified for them of his own accord, is considered a gift and they are entitled to it. The Gemara notes: That is also taught in a baraita: Women with regard to whom the Sages said: They are not entitled to payment of a marriage contract, for example, one who refused to remain married to her husband, and her companions, they are not entitled to the principal of one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars. But as for the additional sum stipulated in the marriage contract that the husband added of his own accord, they are entitled to it. However, women with regard to whom the Sages said: They are divorced without receiving payment for their marriage contract, for example, a woman who violates the precepts of halakha or Jewish custom, and her companions, are not entitled to the additional sum stipulated by their husbands in the marriage contract. And since they violated and transgressed the mitzvot, it is all the more so that they are not entitled to receive the principal one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, as the Sages penalized them and negated all of their husband’s obligations that are recorded in the marriage contract. And one who is divorced because she received a bad reputation for licentiousness takes what is left of her usufruct property and is divorced. The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: A woman who was licentious has not lost her right to her worn clothes that are in existence. She retains possession of her clothes and all of the other items that she brought with her to the marriage that have not been worn out. The tanna teaches a baraita before Rav Naḥman: A woman who was licentious lost her right to her extant, worn clothes, i.e., when they divorce, she does not keep her clothing. He said to him: If she was unfaithful and engaged in sexual intercourse with another, were her items also licentious? Certainly she is not penalized by losing her right to her property, and therefore teach the opposite: A woman who was licentious has not lost her right to her extant worn clothes. Similarly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This baraita taught by the tanna is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem, the unattributed, as his opinion is cited in several places as the unattributed mishna. However, the Rabbis say that if she was licentious, she has not lost her right to her extant worn clothes.

§ The Sages taught: At the time of the passing of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said: I need my sons. His sons entered his room. He said to them as a last will and testament: Be careful with the honor of your mother. He said further: My lamp should be lit in its usual place, my table should be set in its usual place, and the bed should be arranged in its usual place. Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati; they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death. The Gemara clarifies the various requests that he made of his sons: Be careful with the honor of your mother. The Gemara asks: Why would he need to say this? After all, this is required by Torah law, as it is written: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11)? The Gemara answers: She was their father’s wife. She was not their mother, but their stepmother, and he therefore needed to caution them concerning her honor. The Gemara asks: Honoring a father’s wife is also required by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: Honor your father [et avikha] and your mother [ve’et immekha]. The preposition et in the phrase: Your father; this teaches that you must honor your father’s wife. Similarly, the preposition et in the phrase: And your mother; this teaches that you must honor your mother’s husband. And the extra letter vav, which is appended as a prefix in the phrase “ve’et immekha” is included in order to add your older brother to those who must be honored. The Gemara answers: This halakha, that one is obligated by Torah law to respect his father’s wife, applies only during his father’s lifetime. While the father is alive, out of respect for him, his wife must also be treated with respect. However, following his death, no, there is no longer any obligation to honor a stepmother. It was for this reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to caution his sons in this matter. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi commanded his sons: My lamp should be lit in its usual place, my table should be set in its usual place, and the bed should be arranged in its usual place. The Gemara asks: What is the reason he made these requests? The Gemara explains: Every Shabbat eve, even after his passing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would come to his house as he had done during his lifetime, and he therefore wished for everything to be set up as usual. The Gemara relates the following incident: It happened on a certain Shabbat eve that a neighbor came by and called and knocked at the door. His maidservant said to her: Be quiet, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is sitting. When he heard his maidservant reveal his presence to the neighbor, he did not come again, so as not to cast aspersions on earlier righteous individuals who did not appear to their families following their death. The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati, they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death. It was understood from this statement that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was speaking of this world, that these two should serve him in his death and administer his burial. However, when they saw that their biers preceded his bier, i.e., they died before him, they said: Conclude from here that he was speaking of that world. They will attend to him in the World-to-Come. And the reason he said this was so that people should not say: There was something wrong with them, and until now, too, it was the merit of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that benefited them and prevented them from dying due to their sins. Now that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is dying, his merit no longer protects them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi therefore clarified that the reason for their deaths was in order to enable them to escort him in death as in life. § Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said further to his attendants: I need the Sages of Israel. The Sages of Israel entered his room. He said to them: Do not eulogize me in the small towns and reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. My son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamliel should be the Nasi. Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva. The Gemara explains the requests of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do not eulogize me in the small towns. They understood from this statement that he said this due to the trouble that would be caused for many if he were eulogized in every town, since they would have to travel from the outlying villages to take part in the eulogies. However, when they saw that they were eulogizing him in the cities and everyone came despite the trouble, they said: Conclude from here that he said this due to considerations of honor. Had they eulogized him in the towns, the gatherings would have been small and unfitting for a man of his stature. He therefore requested that they arrange things in a way that large crowds would gather. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further instructed: Reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. This is because I am not better than Moses, our teacher, as it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (Deuteronomy 34:8), which means that for thirty days they eulogized him by day and night. From this point forward they eulogized him by day and they studied by night, or they eulogized him by night and studied by day, until they eulogized him for twelve months of the year. The Gemara relates that on the day of the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a Divine Voice emerged and said: Whoever was present at the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is destined for life in the World-to-Come. There was a certain launderer who would come before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi every day. On that particular day, he did not come and was therefore not present at the funeral. When he heard this, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died, he was so full of grief that he ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: That launderer too is destined for life in the World-to-Come. § Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My son Shimon is a Sage; my son Gamliel should be the Nasi. What was he saying, i.e., what did he mean by these remarks? The Gemara explains: This is what he was saying: Although my son Shimon is a greater Sage, my son Gamliel should be the Nasi. Levi said: Need this be said? After all, Gamliel was the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: It is necessary for you and for your limp. The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Shimon find difficult with Levi’s question that caused him to scoff? Doesn’t the verse state: “But the kingdom he gave to Jehoram because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3)? This indicates that the firstborn is the one who inherits his father’s appointment, and so Levi legitimately asked why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to leave specific instructions about this. The Gemara explains: He, Jehoram, filled the place of his fathers, i.e., he was their equal in his personal attributes and leadership capabilities. However, Rabban Gamliel did not fill the place of his fathers, and for this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to specifically command that he nevertheless be appointed as the Nasi. The Gemara asks: And if that is so, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did this? Why did he choose this son to be his successor if he was unfit for the position? The Gemara answers: Although he did not fill the place of his fathers with regard to wisdom, as he was not as great a Torah scholar as his father, he did fill the place of his fathers with regard to fear of sin and was therefore fit to be appointed as the Nasi. § Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instructed: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina did not accept this appointment, because Rabbi Afes was older than him by two and a half years and he did not want to precede him in accepting this position. Consequently, Rabbi Afes sat at the head of the yeshiva, and Rabbi Ḥanina sat outside, as it was unbefitting for him to sit as a student before Rabbi Afes. And Levi came and sat and studied with him outside. Rabbi Afes died, and Rabbi Ḥanina, taking his place, sat at the head of the yeshiva. And Levi did not have anyone to sit and study with, and so he came to Babylonia. And this is the background to the incident in which they said to Rav: A great man came to Neharde’a, and he limps, and he taught: It is permitted for a woman who is wearing a kelila, a tiara-like ornament, to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav then said: Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes died and Rabbi Ḥanina, taking his place, sat at the head of the yeshiva, and Levi did not have anyone to sit and study with, and so he came to Babylonia. The Gemara asks: How did Rav know that it was Rabbi Afes who died? Say that Rabbi Ḥanina was the one who died, and Rabbi Afes sat as he had sat, i.e., he continued to sit at the head of the yeshiva, and Levi did not have anyone to sit with, and so he came to Babylonia. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Levi was subordinate to Rabbi Afes and would have sat before him as a student had Rabbi Afes still been alive, and the only reason why he sat outside in the first place was in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, who sat outside because he did not consider himself subordinate to Rabbi Afes. And if you wish, say instead that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had said: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva, it is not possible that he will not one day rule the yeshiva. Therefore, it must have been Rabbi Afes who died and Rabbi Ḥanina who took his place, as it is written about the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you” (Job 22:28). The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya there? Why didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi appoint him as head of the yeshiva? The Gemara answers: He died before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say: I saw the grave site of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I shed tears over it? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who said that he saw the grave site of Rabbi Ḥiyya. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say: On that day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, sanctity ceased? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who made this statement about Rabbi Ḥiyya. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fell ill, Rabbi Ḥiyya entered to be with him and found him crying. He said to him: My teacher, for what reason are you crying? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one dies while laughing, it is a good sign for him; while crying, it is a bad sign for him. If one dies with his face upward, it is a good sign for him; with his face downward, it is a bad sign for him. If one dies with his face facing the people standing around him, it is a good sign for him; with his face facing the wall, it is a bad sign for him. If one’s face is sallow, it is a bad sign for him; if his face is yellow or ruddy, it is a good sign for him. If one dies on the Shabbat eve it is a good sign for him, because he is heading straight into the Shabbat rest; if one dies at the conclusion of Shabbat it is a bad sign for him. If one dies on the eve of Yom Kippur, it is a bad sign for him, as his sins have not yet been forgiven; if one dies at the conclusion of Yom Kippur it is a good sign for him, because he died after his sins have been forgiven. If one dies due to an intestinal disease, it is a good sign for him, because most of the righteous die due to intestinal disease. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I am crying for the Torah and the mitzvot that I will be unable to fulfill after I die. This indicates that Rabbi Ḥiyya was present at the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s death. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that one must reverse the names and that it was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who came to visit Rabbi Ḥiyya prior to his death. And if you wish, say instead that actually we do not need to reverse the names in all of the above statements, but rather explain that Rabbi Ḥiyya was occupied with the performance of mitzvot and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi thought: I will not hold him back from his performance of mitzvot by appointing him head of the yeshiva. And this is the background to an exchange that took place when Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Ḥiyya argued. Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: You are arguing with me? If, Heaven forfend, the Torah would be forgotten from the Jewish people, I would restore it through my analyses, i.e., using my abilities of analysis I would be able to rediscover all that had been lost. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Ḥanina: I am working to ensure that the Torah will not be forgotten from the Jewish people. For I bring flax and I plant it, and I then weave nets from the flax fibers. I then go out and trap deer, and I feed the meat to orphans, and I form scrolls from the skins of the deer. And I go to a town that has no teachers of children in it and I write the five books of the Torah for five children. And I teach the six orders of the Mishna to six children. To each and every one of these children I say: Teach your order to your friends. In this way all of the children will learn the whole of the Torah and the Mishna. And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to when he said: How great are the actions of Ḥiyya. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to his father: Even greater than your works? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Even greater than the work of Rabbi Yosei, my father? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Heaven forfend. Such comments should not be made among the Jewish people. § The Gemara returns to the narrative of the impending death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He said to them: I need my younger son. Rabbi Shimon entered his presence. He transmitted to him the orders of wisdom, including how he should conduct himself and the essential principles of the Torah. He said to them: I need my older son. Rabban Gamliel entered his presence, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi transmitted to him the procedures of the office of the Nasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabban Gamliel: My son, conduct your term as Nasi with assertiveness and cast fear upon your students, i.e., treat them in a firm manner so that they will fear you. The Gemara asks: Is that so that it is correct to behave in such a manner? But isn’t it written: “But he honors those that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4), and the Master said: This is referring to Jehoshaphat, king of Judea. When he would see a Torah scholar he would rise from his throne and hug him and kiss him and call to him: My teacher, my teacher, my master, my master. This demonstrates that it is appropriate even for a king to behave with affection toward Torah scholars. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This display of affection should be applied in private, when only the teacher and student are present, and that stern demeanor should be applied in public, in order to ensure the teacher’s authority. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was lying ill in Tzippori and a burial site was ready for him in Beit She’arim. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “Justice, justice shall you follow” (Deuteronomy 16:20); follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to Beit She’arim, i.e., one should seek to have his case adjudicated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court in Beit She’arim. This indicates that Beit She’arim, not Tzippori, was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place of residence, and therefore he must have been lying ill in Beit She’arim. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in Beit She’arim, but when he became ill they transferred him to Tzippori, which is situated at a high altitude and whose air is scented. § It is related that on the day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the Sages decreed a fast, and begged for divine mercy so that he would not die. And they said: Anyone who says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has died will be stabbed with a sword. The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds. And the Sages, meanwhile, would not be silent, i.e., they would not refrain, from begging for mercy so that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not die. So she took a jug [kuza] and threw it from the roof to the ground. Due to the sudden noise, the Sages were momentarily silent and refrained from begging for mercy, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died. The Sages said to bar Kappara: Go and ascertain the condition of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He went and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died. He tore his clothing and reversed them so that the tear would be behind him and not be noticed. When he returned to the Sages he opened his remarks and said: The angels [erelim] and righteous mortals [metzukim] both clutched the sacred ark. The angels triumphed over the righteous, and the sacred ark was captured. They said to him: Has he died? He said to them: You have said it and I did not say it, as it had been decided that no one should say that he died. It is further related: At the time of the death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he raised his ten fingers toward Heaven and said in prayer: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that I toiled with my ten fingers in the Torah, and I have not derived any benefit from the world even with my small finger. May it be Your will that there be peace in my repose. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “He enters in peace, they rest in their beds” (Isaiah 57:2). The Gemara asks: Why does it say: “They rest in their beds,” in the plural? It should have said: In your bed, in the singular, as the beginning of the verse is phrased in the singular. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, the ministering angels say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the righteous individual so-and-so is coming. The Holy One, Blessed be He, then says to them: The righteous should come forth and they should go out toward him. And the righteous say to the newly deceased individual: He enters in peace, and subsequently, the righteous rest in their beds. Rabbi Elazar said: At the time when a righteous individual departs from the world, three contingents of ministering angels go out toward him. One says to him: Enter in peace; and one says to him: Each one that walks in his uprightness; and one says to him: He enters in peace, they rest in their beds. At the time when a wicked person perishes from the world, three contingents of angels of destruction go out toward him. One says to him: “There is no peace, says the Lord concerning the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22); and one says to him: “You shall lie down in sorrow” (Isaiah 50:11); and one says to him: “Go down, and be laid with the uncircumcised” (Ezekiel 32:19).

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: Those who issue decrees in Jerusalem would take their wages, ninety-nine maneh, equal to 9,900 dinars per year, from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. If they did not wish to do so, one adds to their wages. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: If they did not wish to do so? Does this mean that if they desired higher wages, they were paid more? Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who demand wages beyond what they need? Rather, on the contrary, Rav Asi said that if their wages were insufficient for their needs, then even if they did not wish to receive higher wages, one adds to their wages so that they may devote themselves to their communal service. The Gemara relates: The Sage Karna would take an istera, a small coin, from the innocent party, and an istera from the guilty party, i.e., he would charge both parties that came to him for judgment, and then he would judge their case. The Gemara asks: But how could he do so? Isn’t it written: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8), which indicates that a judge may not take money from either of the two litigants? And if you say that this prohibition against taking a bribe applies only when a judge does not take from both parties, as there is a concern that perhaps he may come to pervert the judgment in favor of the party that gave him the bribe, whereas in the case of Karna, since he took from both parties he will not come to pervert the judgment, who says that the verse is referring only to those circumstances? Is it permitted to take a bribe even in a case when one will not pervert the judgment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8); what is the meaning when the verse states this? If it comes to teach that one should not acquit the guilty and one should not convict the innocent due to a bribe, it is already stated: “You shall not wrest judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:19). Rather, this verse teaches that even if the purpose of the bribe is to ensure that one acquit the innocent and convict the guilty, the Torah nevertheless says: “And you shall take no bribe.” This indicates that it is prohibited for a judge to receive anything from the litigants, even if there is no concern at all that justice will be perverted. The Gemara answers: This applies only when one takes the money in the form of a bribe, even if he does not intend to pervert the judgment, whereas Karna took the money in the form of a salary, not a bribe. The Gemara asks: But is it permitted to take money from litigants in the form of a salary? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 58b): With regard to one who takes a salary to judge cases, his judgments are void? The Gemara answers: This applies only when he took money as his compensation for judging the case, whereas Karna accepted the money as compensation for unemployment, i.e., as he could not engage in his usual work while dealing with the case, he would take compensation for this unemployment. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to take money as compensation for unemployment? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Ugly is the judge who takes a salary to judge cases; however, his judgments are valid judgments? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this baraita? If we say that it is referring to one who accepted money as his compensation for judging, are his judgments valid judgments? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 58b): With regard to one who takes a salary to judge cases, his judgments are void? Rather, it must certainly be referring to a situation where he takes money as compensation for unemployment, and yet the baraita teaches: Ugly is the judge. The Gemara answers: This statement that the judge is ugly applies only when the fact that he is taking a salary for his unemployment is not evident, as he was not engaged in some other type of work at the time. Karna, however, would take money for his unemployment when it was evident that he was taking time off work to judge the case, as he was examining people's wine stores [ambara] to see which casks would last and which were going sour, and they would pay him one dinar as a salary. Consequently, when Karna paused from his work to deal with a case, it was clear that he was losing money. This resembles an incident involving Rav Huna. When people would come for judgment before him, he would say to them: As I am unable to take time off from my work, give me a man who can draw water for me, to irrigate the fields in my place, and I will judge your case. Rabbi Abbahu said: Come and see how blind are the eyes of those who accept bribes, and how they ruin themselves. If a person has pain in his eyes, he gives a doctor money, and even then it is uncertain whether he will be healed or whether he will not be healed. And yet those judges take the value of a peruta, a small amount of money as a bribe, and actively blind their eyes, as it is stated: “For a bribe blinds those who have sight” (Exodus 23:8). The Sages taught: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly blind the eyes of fools. “And perverts the words of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:19); a fortiori it will certainly pervert the statements of the wicked. The Gemara asks: Are fools and the wicked suitable for judgment, i.e., to be appointed as judges? Rather, this is what the tanna of the baraita said: “For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise”; even if he were very wise but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without suffering blindness of the heart, i.e., he will eventually turn foolish. “And perverts the words of the righteous”; even if he is completely righteous but he took a bribe, he will not leave this world without becoming demented. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rav Naḥman bar Kohen interpreted a verse homiletically as follows. What is the meaning of that which is written: “The king by justice establishes the land, but he who exacts gifts [terumot] overthrows it” (Proverbs 29:4)? If a judge is like a king, in that he does not need anything and is not dependent on anyone, he establishes the land, i.e., he can serve as a judge. But if he is like a priest, who seeks out his terumot from various granaries, as he is dependent on others, he overthrows the land. § Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: This judge who borrows items from others is disqualified from rendering judgment because it is as though he accepts a salary. And we said this only in a case where he does not have articles to lend out to others but is constantly borrowing without lending objects in turn. However, if he has items to lend out to others, we have no problem with it. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava would borrow items from the house of bar Maryon even though they would not borrow from him. The Gemara answers: There, he wanted to cause them to be considered more important in the community. Rava was very wealthy and did not need to borrow for his own benefit. On the contrary, by borrowing from the house of bar Maryon he raised their standing in the community. Rava said: What is the reason for the prohibition against taking a bribe? Once a judge accepts a bribe from one party, his thoughts draw closer to him and he becomes like his own self, and a person does not find fault in himself. The Gemara notes that the term itself alludes to this idea: What is the meaning of shoḥad, bribe? It can be read as: Shehu ḥad, as he is one, i.e., at one mind with the litigant. Rav Pappa said: A person should not judge a case involving one whom he loves, nor involving one whom he hates. He should not judge one whom he loves, as he will not find any fault in him, while with regard to one whom he hates, he will not find any merit in him. Abaye said: With regard to this Torah scholar who is beloved by the residents of his town, it is not because he is a superior Sage than others; rather, it is because he does not reprove them in Heavenly matters. He is beloved because he is not strict with them with regard to the observance of mitzvot. Rava said: At first I would say that all these residents of Meḥoza love me; however, once I became a judge I said that some of them hate me and some of them love me, as I assumed that their feelings toward me depended on the success of their case. When I saw that the one I declared guilty today would be found innocent the following day, I realized that my rulings do not determine their attitudes, and therefore I said: If they love, then they all love me, and if they hate, then they all hate me, regardless of what happens in the courtroom. § The Sages taught: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8). It is not necessary to say that this includes bribery by means of money; however, even verbal bribery, assisting by means of speech, is also prohibited. The halakha that a bribe is not necessarily monetary is derived from the fact that it is not written: And you shall take no profit. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of bribing with words? The Gemara explains: This can be demonstrated by that episode involving Shmuel, who was once crossing a river on a narrow ferry. A certain man came along and gave him a hand to help him out of the ferryboat. Shmuel said to him: What are you doing in this place? The man said to him: I have a case to present before you for judgment. Shmuel said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, as you did me a favor. Although no money changed hands, a bond was formed between the pair. The Gemara relates a similar story. Ameimar was sitting and judging a case when a feather floated and landed on his head. A certain man came by and removed it from his head. Ameimar said to him: What are you doing here? He said to him: I have a case to present before you. Ameimar said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, due to the favor you performed for me. The Gemara likewise relates: There was spittle lying before Mar Ukva. A certain man came by and covered it. He said to him: What are you doing here? He said to him: I have a case to present before you. Mar Ukva said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case. The Gemara cites another incident. The sharecropper of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was accustomed to bringing him a basket [kanta] full of fruits every Shabbat eve. One day, he brought him the basket on a Thursday. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: What is different that you came early now, this week? The sharecropper said to him: I have a case to present before you, and I said to myself that along my way I will bring to the Master the basket of fruits, as in any case I am coming on Thursday, the day the courts are in session. Rabbi Yishmael did not accept the basket of fruits from him, and he said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case. Rabbi Yishmael seated a pair of rabbinic scholars and they judged the sharecropper’s case. As Rabbi Yishmael was coming and going, he said to himself: If he wants, he could claim this, and if he wants, he could claim that, i.e., he kept thinking of all the ways in which the litigant who brought him the fruits could win his case. He said to himself: Blast the souls of those who accept bribes. If I, who did not accept anything, and if I had accepted, I would have accepted my own property, as it is my sharecropper and the fruits legally belong to me, am nevertheless in this state of mind due to the proposed gift, all the more so are those who actually accept bribes inevitably biased in favor of the one who bribed them. The Gemara likewise relates with regard to Rabbi Yishmael bar Elisha, who was a priest, that a certain man once brought him the first shearing. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: From where are you? The man said to him: I am from such and such a place. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And from there to here was there no priest to whom you could give the first shearing? He said to him: I have a case to present before you, and I said to myself that along my way I will bring to the Master the first shearing. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, and he would not accept the first shearing from him. Rabbi Yishmael bar Elisha seated a pair of rabbinic scholars and they judged his case. As Rabbi Yishmael was coming and going, he said to himself: If he wants, he could claim this, and if he wants, he could claim that. He said to himself: Blast the souls of those who accept bribes. If I, who did not accept anything, and if I had accepted, I would have accepted my own property, as I am a priest and am entitled to receive the first shearing, am nevertheless in this state of mind, all the more so are those who accept bribes. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who once brought to Rav Anan a basket of small fish [gildanei devei gilei]. He said to him: What are you doing here? The man said to him: I have a case to present before you. Rav Anan would not accept the basket from him, and he said to him: I am disqualified from presiding over your case, due to your actions. The man said to him: I do not need the Master’s judgment. However, let the Master accept my gift anyway, so that the Master does not prevent me from presenting first fruits. What does the mitzva of first fruits have to with this situation? As it is taught in a baraita: “And there came a man came from Ba’al Shalisha, and he brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of corn in his sack” (II Kings 4:42). But did Elisha, the recipient of these gifts, eat first fruits? After all, he was not a priest. Rather, this verse comes to tell you: Whoever brings a gift to a Torah scholar, it is as though he has presented first fruits. This visitor to Rav Anan wished to fulfill this mitzva. Rav Anan said to him: I do not want to take it from you, but now that you have explained to me the reason that you wish to give it to me I will accept it from you. Rav Anan sent the man to Rav Naḥman, and he also sent him a letter: Let the Master judge this man’s case because I, Anan, am disqualified from judging his cases. Rav Naḥman said to himself: From the fact that he sent me this letter, I can conclude from here that the reason he is disqualified from judging the case is because he is his relative. At that time, a case involving orphans was being heard before Rav Naḥman. He said: This is a positive mitzva, for judges to judge cases properly, and this is a positive mitzva, to honor Torah scholars and their families. Rav Naḥman concluded that the positive mitzva of giving honor to the Torah takes precedence. Therefore, he put aside the case of the orphans and settled down to judge the case of that man, under the mistaken assumption that he was a relative of Rav Anan. Once the other litigant saw the honor being accorded to that man by the judge, he grew nervous until his mouth, i.e., his ability to argue his claim, became closed, and he lost the case. In this manner, justice was perverted by Rav Anan, albeit unwittingly and indirectly. Elijah the Prophet was accustomed to come and visit Rav Anan, as the prophet was teaching him the statements that would later be recorded in the volume Seder deEliyahu, the Order of Elijah. Once Rav Anan did this and caused a miscarriage of justice, Elijah departed. Rav Anan sat in observance of a fast and prayed for mercy, and Elijah came back. However, when Elijah came after that, he would scare him, as he would appear in frightening forms. And Rav Anan made a box where he settled himself down and he sat before Elijah until he took out for him, i.e., taught him, all of his Seder. And this is what the Sages mean when they say: Seder deEliyahu Rabba, the Major Order of Elijah, and Seder Eliyahu Zuta, the Minor Order of Elijah, as the first order was taught prior to this incident and the second came after it. § The Gemara relates: In the years of Rav Yosef there was a divine anger, manifested by world hunger. The Sages said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master pray for mercy concerning this decree. He said to them: Now, if in the case of the prophet Elisha, when the Sages would take their leave of him, 2,200 Sages would remain behind whom he would support from his own pocket, and yet he would not pray for mercy at a time of divine anger and famine, should I pray for mercy? The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that this number of scholars would remain behind with Elisha? As it is written: “And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men” (II Kings 4:43). What is the meaning of “before a hundred men”? If we say that all of the gifts that he had received, i.e., the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn mentioned in the preceding verse, were meant to be placed before one hundred men, in years of drought and famine this was a good deal of food, which would have sufficed for them. Rather, it must mean that each and every one of the loaves was to be placed before one hundred men. Since he had twenty loaves plus two meals of first-fruits and ears of corn, there must have been 2,200 people present. § Incidentally, the Gemara relates: When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rav, 1,200 Sages would remain behind to continue their studies. When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rav Huna, eight hundred Sages would remain behind. Rav Huna would expound the lesson by means of thirteen speakers, who would repeat his statements to the crowds that had gathered to hear him. When the Sages would arise from listening to lectures in the yeshiva of Rav Huna and dust off their cloaks, the dust would rise and block out the sun, forming a dust cloud that could be seen from afar. And they would say in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: The scholars have just arisen in the yeshiva of Rav Huna the Babylonian. When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Rabba and Rav Yosef, four hundred Sages would remain behind, and they would refer to themselves as orphans, as they were the only ones left from the entire crowd. When the Sages would take their leave from the school of Abaye, and some say from the school of Rav Pappa, and some say from the school of Rav Ashi, two hundred scholars would remain behind, and they would refer to themselves as orphans of orphans. § The Gemara returns to the issue of those who receive their wages from public funds. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said that Rabbi Ami said: Inspectors of blemishes of consecrated animals in Jerusalem, who would examine all animals brought to be sacrificed in the Temple to verify that they were free of any blemishes that would disqualify them from being sacrificed on the altar, would take their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of slaughter to the priests of the Temple would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Torah scholars who teach the halakhot of the removal of a handful to the priests would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. All these scholars were constantly engaged in work necessary for the functioning of the Temple, and therefore they would receive their wages from the Temple treasury. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The proofreaders of the Torah scrolls in Jerusalem would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The women who weave the curtains that separate the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Rav Naḥman added: But I say that they would not be paid from the collection of the chamber; rather, their salary would come from the funds consecrated for Temple maintenance. Why? Since the curtains served in place of the solid construction of the building, they were part of the Temple itself. Therefore, any work performed for the curtains should be paid for from money allocated for building purposes, not from the funds collected to pay for offerings and the daily needs of the Temple. The Gemara raises an objection to this: The women who weave the curtains, and the house of Garmu, who were in charge of the preparation of the shewbread, and the house of Avtinas, who were in charge of the preparation of the incense, all would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. This contradicts Rav Naḥman’s claim. The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to the curtains of the gates, which were not considered part of the actual Temple building but were decorative in purpose. As Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, seven opposite, i.e., on the inside of, seven gates, one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall, two additional curtains within the partition, in the Holy of Holies in place of the one-cubit partition, and two corresponding to them above in the upper chamber. The Sages taught: With regard to the women who raise their children for the red heifer, i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood. Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav: Concerning Temple service vessels, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that they may be prepared by using money consecrated for Temple maintenance? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Are they requirements of the altar, and therefore they came from money consecrated for Temple maintenance, or are they requirements of offerings, and therefore they were prepared from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber? Rav said to him: They are prepared only from the collection of the chamber. Rav Huna raised an objection to this from a verse that deals with those in charge of maintaining the Temple structure: “And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, of which were made vessels for the house of the Lord, vessels with which to minister, and buckets, and pans, and vessels of gold and silver” (II Chronicles 24:14). This indicates that vessels may be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance. Rav said to him: Whoever taught you the Writings did not teach you the Prophets, as you forgot about the parallel verse in the Prophets: “But there were not made for the house of the Lord cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; for they gave that to those who did the work” (II Kings 12:14–15). This verse proves that vessels were not prepared with the money donated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: If so, the verses contradict each other, as in one place it states that the Temple vessels may be funded with the money donated for Temple maintenance, while in the other verse it states that this money was used exclusively for those involved in the actual work of Temple maintenance. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here it is speaking of a case where they collected funds and there was money left over. These funds could be used for Temple vessels. Conversely, here, the verse is referring to a situation where they collected funds and there was nothing left over, and therefore all of the money was allocated to actual Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: And if they collected money and there was some left over, what of it? After all, that money was consecrated for another purpose. If the Temple vessels could not be prepared with money consecrated for Temple maintenance, how were they able to use any of these funds for this purpose? Rabbi Abbahu said: The court initially sets a mental stipulation about the money collected: If it is required for Temple maintenance, it is required and is allocated accordingly, and if not, it will be used for the service vessels. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The funding for the service vessels of the Temple comes from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, as it is stated: “The rest of the money” (II Chronicles 24:14). Which money has a remainder? You must say that this is referring to the collection of the chamber. After the money was brought into the chamber, a certain portion of it would be set aside for the requirements of the offerings, while the remainder was used for other purposes. The Gemara asks: But one can say that the remainder itself was used for the Temple vessels, and the phrase “the rest of the money” does not refer to the funds of which there is a remainder, but to the remainder of the donations left in the chamber after the first collection was removed. The Gemara answers: This is as Rava said elsewhere, that the phrase “the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 6:5), with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt-offering; so too, the term “the money” (II Chronicles 24:14) is referring to the first money, i.e., the money removed from the collection of the chamber. The Gemara raises an objection from the following source: The funds for the incense and all communal offerings come from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The funds for the golden altar, located inside the Sanctuary and upon which the incense was offered, the frankincense, and the service vessels all come from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations. The funds for the upkeep of the altar of burnt-offerings, which was located outside the Sanctuary and on which most offerings were burned, and for the chambers, and for the various courtyards, come from money consecrated for Temple maintenance. Funds for those matters that are outside the walls of the Temple courtyard come from the remainder of the chambers. And with regard to this we learned: The wall of the city, its towers, and all of the requirements of the city of Jerusalem likewise come from the remainder of the chamber. According to this source, the funds for the sacred vessels came from the leftover money of the funds set aside for the libations, not the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection of shekels that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase golden plates as a coating for the walls and floor of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: There were different types of remainders in the Temple, each of which had separate regulations. The leftover produce was used to purchase the repletion [keitz] of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed when the altar would otherwise be idle. The leftover funds of the collection were used to purchase service vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar, as they had originally been collected for offerings. The leftover libations were used to purchase service vessels. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: The leftover libations were used to purchase animals for the repletion of the altar, while the leftover funds of the collection of shekels were used to purchase service vessels. Both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce. The Gemara asks: What is this produce? As it is taught in a baraita: What would they do with the leftover funds of the collection? They would use it to buy produce at a cheap price and subsequently sell that produce at an expensive price, and the profit earned from this trade would be used for the repletion of the altar. And with regard to this we learned: The leftover funds of produce were used to purchase the animals for the repletion of the altar. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that both this Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and that Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, did not agree with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with regard to the leftover produce? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva is consistent with his opinion elsewhere, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 6a): What would they do with the leftover remainder of the chamber? They would purchase wine, oil, and fine flour and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. And the profit from these sales would go to consecrated property, i.e., to the Temple treasury. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by selling consecrated property, nor may one profit from funds set aside for the poor. The Gemara explains the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling: What is the reason that one may not use consecrated property to generate a profit? It is because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., the Temple must always be run in a lavish manner. Therefore, one may not use Temple funds to generate small profits in the manner of paupers. What is the reason that one may not use funds set aside for the poor to make a profit? It is because perhaps one will encounter a poor person and there will be nothing to give him, as all of the money is invested in some business transaction.

MISHNA: Admon states a dissenting opinion to that of the Rabbis in seven cases. The mishna elaborates: With regard to one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the property and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it. And with regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance and the sons have neither inheritance nor sustenance, and therefore, if they have no other means with which to support themselves, they must go round begging at the doors. Admon says: Because I am a male, will I lose out? Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon. GEMARA: With regard to Admon’s statement: Because I am a male will I lose out, the Gemara asks: What is he saying? What is the significance of the fact that one is male? Abaye said that this is what he is saying: Because I am a male and, unlike women, I am fit to engage in Torah study, should I lose out? Rava said to him: Is that to say that it is one who is engaged in Torah study who inherits, whereas one who is not engaged in Torah study does not inherit? What does the study of Torah have to do with the matter at hand? Rather, Rava said that this is what Admon is saying: Because I am a male, who has a greater right to the property by Torah law, and therefore it is fitting for me to inherit when the estate is large, will I now lose out entirely in a case of a small estate?

MISHNA: Eretz Yisrael is divided into three separate lands with regard to marriage: Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. If a man marries a woman in one of these lands he may not remove her from one town to another town in another of these lands or from one city to another city, i.e., he cannot compel her to move to another land. However, in the same land one may remove her from one town to another town or from one city to another city. However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town. The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters. GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that one may not force one’s spouse to move from a city to a town or from a town to a city, the Gemara asks: Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city? The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: “And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem” (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area. § The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits [veset] or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better. Since the Gemara quoted from Sefer Ben Sira, it cites the rest of the passage concerning the terrible days of the poor. Ben Sira says: Even the nights of the poor are bad. His roof is at the low point of the roofs, i.e., his residence is at the lowest point in the city, and his vineyard is at the mountain peaks, at the highest point of the slope, which means that the rain of roofs washes down to his roof, and the soil of his vineyard to other vineyards, i.e., the rain washes away the soil in his vineyard and carries it away to the vineyards below.

MISHNA: All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem. The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia. GEMARA: The mishna stated: All can force the members of their family to ascend. The Gemara asks: This inclusive phrase serves to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include slaves, i.e., Hebrew slaves as well may be coerced to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael with their master’s family against their will. The Gemara asks: And according to the one whose text of the mishna expressly teaches the case of slaves, this phrase comes to include what case? As stated later in the Gemara, there are some editions of the mishna that state that this halakha applies equally to men, women, and slaves. The Gemara answers: It comes to include one who moves from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence, i.e., one may coerce his family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael even from a good residence abroad to an inferior one in Eretz Yisrael. § The mishna further taught: But all may not remove others. Once again the Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a Canaanite slave who ran away from his master and came from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, as we say to the master: Sell your slave here, in Eretz Yisrael, and then you may go and return abroad, but you may not take the slave abroad with you, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael. § The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem. § The mishna taught: And all may not remove them from Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include even a move from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence. The Gemara adds: And since the tanna of the mishna taught: But one may not remove, in the first clause, he also taught: But one may not remove, in the latter clause, despite the fact that this halakha could have been inferred from the first clause. § The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract. § The mishna taught that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her the marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. The same is true if he married her in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the rulings provided by the mishna.

§ In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Leviticus 25:38). The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: “For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (I Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. § The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22). Based on that verse, Rav Yehuda held that since the Babylonian exile was imposed by divine decree, permission to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael could be granted only by God. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira interpret that verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira maintains that that verse is written about the Temple service vessels, and it does not refer to the Jewish people, as the previous verse states: “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that remain in the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:21). Consequently, Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Yehuda respond to this argument? The verse is clearly referring to the Temple vessels, not to the people. The Gemara answers that another verse is written: “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that you not awaken or stir up love, until it please” (Song of Songs 2:7). Rabbi Yehuda derived from here that no act of redemption should be performed until a time arrives when it pleases God to bring about the redemption. And Rabbi Zeira maintains that the oath mentioned in that verse means that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, i.e., en masse, whereas individuals may immigrate as they wish. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Yehuda reply to this? The Gemara answers that this command is derived from another verse in which “I adjure you” (Song of Songs 3:5) is written. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the repetition of this oath in these verses? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for that which was taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said: Why are these three oaths (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4) needed? One, so that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, but little by little. And another one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the Jews that they should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world. And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively. And how does Rav Yehuda respond? It is written: “That you not awaken or stir up love” (Song of Songs 2:7), which serves to amplify and include a prohibition against Jews immigrating to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the extra emphasis of this phrase? The Gemara explains: He needs this phrase for that which was taught by Rabbi Levi, who said: These six oaths, i.e., the aforementioned three verses containing oaths, each of which contains the phrase “That you not awaken or stir up,” why are they necessary? Three are those that we said and explained above. The other three oaths are as follows: That those who know should not reveal the end of days; and that they should not distance the end of days by saying that it is still distant; and that they should not reveal the secret of the Jews to the nations. § The Gemara discusses a phrase in the verse cited above. “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field” (Song of Songs 2:7). Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: If you fulfill the oath, it is good, and if not, I will abandon your flesh and all will devour you like the gazelles and like the hinds of the field. Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael dwells without transgression, as it is stated: “And the inhabitant shall not say: I am sick; the people that dwell there shall be forgiven their iniquity” (Isaiah 33:24). Rava said to Rav Ashi: We learned this promise with regard to those who suffer from sickness. The phrase “I am sick” indicates that they are the ones who are forgiven their sins. Rav Anan said: Anyone who is buried in Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is buried beneath the altar. It is stated here: “An altar of earth [adama] you shall make for Me” (Exodus 20:21), and it is stated there: “For He does avenge the blood of His servants, and renders vengeance to His adversaries, and atones for the land of [admato] His people” (Deuteronomy 32:43). This teaches that one who is buried in the earth of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is buried beneath the altar in the Temple. § The Gemara relates: Ulla was accustomed to ascend to Eretz Yisrael from time to time. However, he died outside of Eretz Yisrael. They came and said to Rabbi Elazar that Ulla had passed away. He said: Woe for you Ulla, as through you a verse was fulfilled: “You shall die in an unclean land” (Amos 7:17). They said to him: But his coffin is coming for burial in Eretz Yisrael. He said to them: Even so, one who was absorbed by the soil of Eretz Yisrael while he was yet alive is not similar to one who was absorbed only after death. The Gemara relates with regard to a certain man from Eretz Yisrael that a yevama, i.e., a woman whose childless husband died and left a surviving brother, happened before him, the surviving brother, for levirate marriage. This yevama was living in the district of Bei Ḥoza’a, far away in southeast Babylonia. The man came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: What is the halakha as to whether I may descend to Babylonia to enter into levirate marriage with this woman? Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: His brother married a Samaritan woman [kutit] and died. Rabbi Ḥanina described the man’s late brother in these terms because he had left Eretz Yisrael to marry, and for the same reason he called his wife a Samaritan. Blessed be the Omnipresent who killed him. And yet the brother wishes to follow in his footsteps and descend after him? Better that he stay in Eretz Yisrael. § Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Just as it is prohibited to leave Eretz Yisrael and go to Babylonia, so too, is it prohibited to leave Babylonia for any of the other lands. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Even to go from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei, which is located beyond the border of Babylonia proper, is not permitted. The Gemara relates: A certain man left Pumbedita to live in Bei Kuvei, and Rav Yosef excommunicated him. A certain man left Pumbedita to live in Astonia, which also lay beyond the borders of Babylonia proper, and he died. Abaye said: Had this Torah scholar wanted, he would still be alive, as he could have stayed in Babylonia. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: With regard to the worthy of Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael absorbs them; with regard to the worthy of other lands, Babylonia absorbs them. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did they issue this statement? If we say that they were referring to matters of lineage, didn’t the Master say: Lineage of residents of all lands are muddled compared to that of Eretz Yisrael, and lineage of residents of Eretz Yisrael is muddled compared to that of Babylonia. This means that the lineage of Babylonians was purer than that of the residents of Eretz Yisrael. Rather, they taught this with regard to matters of burial, i.e., the worthy of Babylonia are buried in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yehuda said: With regard to anyone who resides in Babylon, it is as though he is residing in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Ho Zion, escape, you who dwells with the daughter of Babylon” (Zechariah 2:11). This verse equates the two countries. Abaye said: We have a tradition that Babylonia will not see the pangs of the Messiah, i.e., it will be spared the suffering that will be prevalent at the time of his arrival. Abaye interpreted this statement in reference to the city of Hutzal deVinyamin in Babylonia, and as a result people call it Karna deShizavta, Horn of Salvation, as its residents will not endure the travails of the time of the Messiah. § Rabbi Elazar said: The dead of the lands outside of Eretz Yisrael will not come alive and be resurrected in the future, as it is stated: “And I will set glory [tzvi] in the land of the living” (Ezekiel 26:20). This teaches that with regard to a land which contains My desire [tzivyoni], its dead will come alive; however, with regard to a land which does not contain My desire, i.e., outside of Eretz Yisrael, its dead will not come alive. Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection from a different verse: “Your dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise” (Isaiah 26:19). What, is it not the case that the phrase “Your dead shall live” is referring to the dead of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the subsequent phrase “My dead bodies shall arise” is referring to the dead of the lands outside of Eretz Yisrael? And if so, what is the meaning of the verse “And I will set glory [tzvi] in the land of the living”? This verse is written with regard to Nebuchadnezzar, as the Merciful One states: I will bring upon you a king who is as swift as a deer [tzvi]. Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Abba bar Memel: My teacher, I teach it from a different verse, as it is stated: “He gives breath to the people upon it, and spirit to they who walk there” (Isaiah 42:5). This indicates that the future resurrection is specifically for those who dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Abba retorted: But isn’t it written: “My dead bodies shall arise”? How do you interpret this verse? Rabbi Elazar replied: That verse is not referring to those living outside Eretz Yisrael; rather, it is written with regard to stillborns, as they too will merit resurrection. 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. With regard to the aforementioned verse “And spirit to they who walk there” (Isaiah 42:5), Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who walks four cubits in Eretz Yisrael is assured of a place in the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, will the righteous outside of Eretz Yisrael not come alive at the time of the resurrection of the dead? Rabbi Ile’a said: They will be resurrected by means of rolling, i.e., they will roll until they reach Eretz Yisrael, where they will be brought back to life. Rabbi Abba Salla Rava strongly objects to this: Rolling is an ordeal that entails suffering for the righteous. Abaye said: Tunnels are prepared for them in the ground, through which they pass to Eretz Yisrael.

§ The verse states that Jacob commanded Joseph: “You shall carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying-place” (Genesis 47:30). Karna said: There are inner matters here, i.e., a secret meaning: Our Patriarch Jacob knew that he was completely righteous, and if the dead of the lands outside of Eretz Yisrael come alive, why did he trouble his sons to bring him to Eretz Yisrael? The reason is that he was concerned lest he not merit the tunnels. On a similar note, you say: “And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying: God will surely remember you, and you shall carry up my bones from here” (Genesis 50:25). Rabbi Ḥanina said: There are inner matters here. Joseph knew concerning himself that he was completely righteous, and if the dead of the lands outside of Eretz Yisrael come alive, why did he trouble his brothers to carry his coffin four hundreds parasangs to Eretz Yisrael? The reason is that he was concerned lest he not merit the tunnels. § Rabba’s brothers sent him a letter to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, in which they mentioned this idea that Jacob knew that he was completely righteous, as detailed above. They continued by writing that Ilfa adds matters to this statement: An incident occurred involving one who was suffering through his love for a certain woman he desired to marry, and he sought to descend from Eretz Yisrael. When he heard this idea concerning the tremendous significance of living in Eretz Yisrael, he suffered without leaving the country until the day he died. Rabba’s brothers further wrote in their letter: And although you are a great Sage, one who studies by himself is not similar to one who studies from his teacher, and therefore you should come to Eretz Yisrael. And if you say that you do not have a teacher in Eretz Yisrael, in fact you do have a teacher. And who is he? He is Rabbi Yoḥanan. And if you do not ascend to Eretz Yisrael, be careful in three matters: Do not sit excessively, as sitting is harmful with regard to hemorrhoids; do not stand excessively, as standing is harmful with regard to heart trouble; and do not walk excessively, as walking is harmful with regard to eye problems. Rather, divide your time: One-third for sitting, one-third for standing, and one-third for walking. Rabba’s brothers offered him more advice in their letter: With regard to any sitting that is without support, i.e., an object on which to lean, standing is more comfortable than that position. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that standing is better than sitting? Didn’t you say that standing is harmful with regard to heart trouble? Rather, with regard to sitting without support, standing with a support, i.e. an object against which one can lean, is better than it. And so too, the brothers said to Rabba: Yitzḥak, Shimon, and Oshaya all said the same statement: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to female mules. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a female mule in heat, one may not mate a horse or a donkey with her, due to the prohibition against crossbreeding of livestock. Rather, one mates her with one of her kind, another mule. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said, in explanation of this last statement of Rabba’s brothers: Yitzḥak is to be identified with Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa; Shimon is Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say that he is Reish Lakish, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Oshaya is Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished. § Rabbi Elazar said: The common, uneducated people will not come alive in the future, as it is stated: “The dead live not” (Isaiah 26:14). In other words, those who were already considered dead in their lifetimes will not come back to life afterward either. This idea is also taught in a baraita: “The dead live not”; one might have thought that this is referring to everyone, i.e., none of the dead will live again. Therefore, the verse states: “The shades [refa’im] rise not” (Isaiah 26:14). This teaches that the verse is speaking of one who weakens [merapeh] himself from matters of Torah. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Elazar: Their master, i.e. God, is not pleased that you say this of ordinary Jews. Rather, that verse is written about one who weakens himself and succumbs to idol worship. Those who commit this great sin do not merit to be resurrected in the future. Rabbi Elazar said to him: I teach it from a different verse, as it is written: “For Your dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades” (Isaiah 26:19). Rabbi Elazar explains: Anyone who uses the light of Torah, which is called the dew of light, the light of Torah will revive him; and anyone who does not use the light of Torah, the light of Torah will not revive him. Since Rabbi Elazar saw that Rabbi Yoḥanan was grieved over the distress of common, uneducated people, he said to him: My teacher, I have found for them a remedy from the Torah so that they will merit life in the World-to-Come, as it states: “But You who cleave to the Lord your God, are alive every one of you this day” (Deuteronomy 4:4). But is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence? Isn’t it written: For the Lord your God is a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24)? Rather, this verse teaches that anyone who marries his daughter to a Torah scholar, and one who conducts business [perakmatya] on behalf of Torah scholars, by investing their money, and one who utilizes his wealth to benefit Torah scholars with his property in some other way, the verse ascribes him credit as though he is cleaving to the Divine Presence. On a similar note, you say: The verse states: “To love the Lord your God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20). But is it possible for a person to cleave to the Divine Presence? Rather, anyone who marries his daughter to a Torah scholar, and one who conducts business on behalf of Torah scholars, and one who utilizes his wealth to benefit Torah scholars with his property, the verse ascribes him credit as though he is cleaving to the Divine Presence. § Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said: In the future, at the time of the resurrection of the dead, the righteous will burst forth and arise in Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And may they blossom out of the city like the grass of the earth” (Psalms 72:16), and the term “city” means nothing other than Jerusalem, as it is stated: “For I will defend this city” (II Kings 19:34). And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said: In the future the righteous will stand up from their graves in their clothes. This is derived by an a fortiori inference from the example of wheat: Just as wheat, which is buried naked, i.e., the seed alone is planted, and yet it emerges from the ground with several layers of garb, including straw and chaff, in the case of the righteous, who are buried fully clothed, all the more so do they come out of the ground properly dressed. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef further said: In the future Eretz Yisrael will produce cakes [geluskaot] and fine wool clothing [meilat] that will grow from the ground, as it is stated: “Let abundant [pissat] grain [bar] be in the land” (Psalms 72:16). The term pissat is interpreted in a similar manner to ketonet passim, Joseph’s valuable clothing of many colors, while bar can mean bread.

§ The Sages taught the following with regard to the verse “Let abundant [pissat] grain be in the land upon the top of the mountains” (Psalms 72:16). They said: In the future, wheat will rise up, and grow tall like a palm tree, and ascend to the top of the mountains. And lest you say that if wheat will grow this tall its reaper will suffer discomfort, the same verse states: “May his fruit rustle like Lebanon.” The Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring a wind from His treasury and blow across, and this will thereby induce the flour to fall from the stalks of wheat, and a person will go out to the field and bring back a palmful [pissat] of flour, from which he will provide his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household. It is stated: “With the kidney-fat of wheat” (Deuteronomy 32:14). The Sages said: In the future, each and every kernel of wheat will be as big as the two kidneys of the large ox. And do not be surprised that this is possible, as there was an incident involving a fox that nested inside a turnip, and they weighed this turnip, and they discovered that even discounting the space dug out by the fox, it still weighed sixty litra, as measured by the litra of Tzippori. Similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rav Yosef said: There was an incident which occurred in the village of Shiḥin, in Eretz Yisrael, involving one whose father had left him three branches of mustard, one of which broke. And they discovered on this one branch alone nine kav of mustard. And with the wood of its large branches they roofed a booth for artisans. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Taḥlifa said: Father left us a cabbage stalk and we would go up and down on it with a ladder, due to its great height. § It is stated: “And from the blood of the grape you drank foaming wine” (Deuteronomy 32:14). The Sages said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world there is suffering involved in picking grapes and in pressing them. By contrast, in the World-to-Come one will bring one grape in a wagon or on a boat and set it down in a corner of his house and supply from it enough to fill about the amount of a large jug [pitus], and with its wood one will kindle a fire under a cooked dish. And every grape you have will produce no less than thirty full jugs of wine, each with the capacity of a se’a. As it is stated: “And from the blood of the grape you drank foaming wine [ḥamer].” Do not read this term as ḥamer; rather, read it as ḥomer, which is a measure equaling thirty se’a. § When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Binding his foal to the vine” (Genesis 49:11), which is interpreted as a prophecy for the future? It means that every grapevine you have in Eretz Yisrael requires a foal to carry the load of its harvest. The verse continues: “And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine [soreka].” The Gemara explains: Every barren [serak] tree you have in Eretz Yisrael will produce sufficient fruit in the future to load upon two donkeys. And lest you say that these trees do not contain wine, the same verse states: “He washes his garments in wine.” And lest you say that the wine is not red, the verse states: “And from the blood of the grape you drank foaming wine” (Deuteronomy 32:14). And lest you say that this wine does not inebriate those who drink it, the verse states: “And his vesture [suto] in the blood of grapes” (Genesis 49:11). This verse indicates that these wines will induce [mesit] a state of drunkenness. And lest you say that this wine has no flavor, the verse states: “His eyes shall be red [ḥakhlili] with wine” (Genesis 49:12). This unusual term is read homiletically as follows: Each palate [ḥeikh] that tastes it says: This is for me, for me [li li]. And lest you say that the wine is good for the young but it is not good for the old, the verse states: “And his teeth white [leven shinayim] with milk” (Genesis 49:12). Do not read this expression as leven shinayim; rather, read it as leven shanim, one of years, i.e., an elderly person. The Gemara asks: To what does the plain meaning of the aforementioned verse refer? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe: Hint with Your eyes a love that is sweeter than wine, and show me Your teeth through a smile that is sweeter than milk. The Gemara comments: This interpretation supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who whitens his teeth to his friend by smiling at him is better than one who gives him milk to drink, as it is stated: “And his teeth white [leven shinayim] with milk” (Genesis 49:12). Do not read this expression as leven shinayim; rather, read it as libbun shinayim, the whitening of teeth. Likewise, the phrase: With milk, can be read as: Than milk.

The Gemara comments: This interpretation supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who whitens his teeth to his friend by smiling at him is better than one who gives him milk to drink, as it is stated: “And his teeth white [leven shinayim] with milk” (Genesis 49:12). Do not read this expression as leven shinayim; rather, read it as libbun shinayim, the whitening of teeth. Likewise, the phrase: With milk, can be read as: Than milk. § The Gemara relates further stories concerning the great bounty of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Ḥiyya bar Adda was a school teacher of Reish Lakish. On one occasion, Rav Ḥiyya bar Adda was delayed for three days and did not come to teach the children. When he finally came, Reish Lakish said to him: Why were you delayed? Rav Ḥiyya bar Adda said to him: Father left me one branch of a grape vine, and I harvested from it on the first day three hundred grape clusters, and each cluster yielded a quantity of wine enough to fill a jug. On the second day I harvested another three hundred grape clusters, and every two clusters yielded enough wine to fill a jug. On the third day I once again harvested three hundred grape clusters, and every three clusters yielded enough to fill a jug, and I declared ownerless more than half of it. Reish Lakish said to him: Had you not delayed and thereby disrupted the Torah study of children, each grape cluster would have produced more wine. Due to your cancellation of Torah study, each cluster yielded progressively less. § Rami bar Yeḥezkel happened to come to Benei Berak. He saw those goats that were grazing beneath a fig tree, and there was honey oozing from the figs and milk dripping from the goats, and the two liquids were mixing together. He said: This is the meaning of the verse “A land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8). Rabbi Ya’akov ben Dostai said: There are three mil from Lud to Ono. Once I rose early in the morning and I walked in ankle-deep honey oozing from fig trees. Reish Lakish said: I myself saw a region called: The place flowing with milk and honey by Tzippori, and it was an area that covered sixteen by sixteen mil, 256 square mil. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I myself saw the region flowing with milk and honey of all Eretz Yisrael, and it was the same in area as that which stretches from the city of Bei Mikhsei until the fortress of Tulbanki: Its length twenty-two parasangs and its width six parasangs, 132 square parasangs, which is 2,112 square mil. § The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥelbo, Rabbi Avira, and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina happened to come on one occasion to a certain place. The locals brought before these Sages a peach [afarseka] that was as large as a stewpot [ilpas] of Kefar Hino. The Gemara asks: And how big is a stewpot of Kefar Hino? The Gemara answers: It has a capacity of five se’a. They ate one-third of it, they declared ownerless one-third of it, and they placed before their animals one-third of it. In the following year, Rabbi Elazar happened to come to that same place, and they brought a peach before him. He held it in his hand, as the peach was small enough for him to grasp in one hand, and he said, in reference to the change in size of the fruit from the previous year: “A fruitful land into a salt waste, from the wickedness of they who dwell there” (Psalms 107:34), i.e., their sins caused the drastic change in the yield of the produce.

§ Once Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi happened to come to Gavla, in the Golan, and he saw those clusters of vines that were standing as large as calves. He said to the locals: Calves are standing between the grapevines and you are not concerned that they will cause damage? They said to him: They are clusters. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: O earth, O earth! Gather in your fruit. For whom do you produce your fruit? For these gentiles who stand over us in our sins? It would be preferable if you did not produce such large fruit. The following year, Rabbi Ḥiyya happened to come to that same place, and he saw clusters that were standing as large as goats. He said: Goats are standing between the grapevines. They said to him: Go away; do not do to us what your colleague has done. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s curse was already fulfilled, as the fruit had shrunk from the previous year. § The Sages taught: In years of blessings of Eretz Yisrael, an area of land measuring one beit se’a produces fifty thousand kor. By way of comparison, when Zoan, a fertile region in Egypt, was settled, one beit se’a there would produce only seventy kor. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: I saw in the valley of Beit She’an that one beit se’a produced seventy kor, which teaches that the soil of a good-quality and irrigated stretch of land outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael will naturally yield this quantity of produce. And you have no more outstanding earth among all the lands other than the land of Egypt, as it is stated: “Like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” (Genesis 13:10). And you have no more outstanding region in all of the land of Egypt than Zoan. The superior quality of Zoan is derived from the fact that they would raise kings there, as it is written: “For his princes are at Zoan” (Isaiah 30:4). And you have no rockier terrain in all of Eretz Yisrael than Hebron, as people would bury their dead there, e.g., the Patriarchs in the Cave of Machpelah, because the land was not arable. And even so, Hebron was more developed, i.e., more fertile, than Zoan by sevenfold, as it is written: “Now Hebron was built [nivneta] seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numbers 13:22). What is the meaning of the term: Nivneta, in this verse? If we say it means literally that Hebron was built before Zoan, would a person build a house for his younger son before building one for his older son? As it is stated: “And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6), which indicates that Egypt, Mizraim, was older than Canaan, in whose territory Hebron was located. Rather, the meaning of the verse is that Hebron was more developed and more fertile than Zoan by sevenfold, which means that Hebron produced 490 kor, seven times more than the seventy kor of regular fertile land, as stated above. And this applies only to the rocky terrain of Eretz Yisrael, e.g., Hebron, whereas those parts of Eretz Yisrael that were not rocky produced even more, up to five hundred kor. And this applies only to a year when Eretz Yisrael is not blessed. However, with regard to a year when it was blessed, it is written: “And Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year a hundredfold” (Genesis 26:12). Isaac’s field produced one hundred times the normal yield, which according to the above calculations is five thousand kor, as stated in the baraita. § It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: A se’a of wheat in Judea would produce five se’a. How so? It would yield a se’a of flour; a se’a of fine flour; a se’a of bran fiber, from the outer layer of the grain; a se’a of coarse bran, i.e., flour mixed with bran fiber; and a se’a of cibarium [kiburaya], inferior flour. A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi Ḥanina: You are improving your land very well; my father left me one beit se’a of land in Eretz Yisrael and from it I am able to produce oil, from it I produce wine, from it I grow produce, from it I grow legumes, and with it I provide pasture from which my sheep graze. A certain Amorite once said to a resident of Eretz Yisrael: That palm tree which stands on the banks of the Jordan, how many dates are you able to pick from it? He said to him: Sixty kor. The Amorite said to him: You have not yet fully entered Eretz Yisrael and yet you have already succeeded in destroying it. We would pick off that tree 120 kor. The resident said to him: I too am speaking to you about only one side of the tree, as I have not yet picked the fruit off the other side. § Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And give you a pleasant land, the goodliest [tzvi] heritage” (Jeremiah 3:19)? Why is Eretz Yisrael likened to a deer [tzvi]? This comparison comes to tell you that just as with regard to this deer, its skin cannot contain its meat once it has been skinned, so too, Eretz Yisrael cannot contain its fruit once it has been picked, due to the great quantity of the produce. Alternatively, just as this deer is swifter than all the other beasts, so too Eretz Yisrael is swifter to ripen its fruit than all the other countries. The Gemara asks: If so, one can suggest the following comparison: Just as this deer is swift and its meat is not fatty, so too, Eretz Yisrael is swift to ripen its fruit but its fruit is not fat and juicy. The Gemara explains: For this reason the verse states: “Flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8), to say that its fruit is fat and juicier than milk and sweeter than honey. § The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Elazar ascended to Eretz Yisrael he said: I have been spared one curse. When they ordained him and awarded him the title of Rabbi, he said: I have been spared two. When they appointed him to sit in the council of Sages who dealt with the intercalation of the calendar, he said: I have been spared three. As it is stated: “And My hand shall be against the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies; they shall not be in the council of My people, neither shall they be written in the register of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord God” (Ezekiel 13:9). “They shall not be in the council of My people,” this is referring to the council of the intercalation of the calendar; “neither shall they be written in the register of the house of Israel,” this is referring to ordination; “neither shall they enter into the land of Israel,” this is understood as per its plain meaning. Rabbi Elazar merited that these three curses were not fulfilled in him. § When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he could not find a ferry to cross the Jordan River. He took hold of a rope that was strung across as a makeshift bridge and crossed the Jordan. A certain Sadducee said to him: Hasty people who put your mouths before your ears, when you said at the time of the giving of the Torah: “We will do” before “we will hear” (Exodus 24:7), you remain hasty to this day. Why couldn’t you wait a little longer to cross the river on a ferry? Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is a place where Moses and Aaron did not merit entering; who is to say that I will merit seeing this land? I hurried across before anything might occur to prevent my entrance into Eretz Yisrael.