Nedarim: Greatest Hits

Rabbi Abba said: I was standing before Rav Huna, and he heard a certain woman utter a mention of the name of God in vain. He excommunicated her and immediately dissolved the excommunication for her in her presence. The Gemara comments: Learn three things from this. Learn from this that one who hears mention of the name of God in vain by another individual must ostracize him; and learn from this that if one ostracized another in his presence, one may dissolve it for him only in his presence; and learn from this that there is nothing, i.e., no minimum time that must pass, between ostracism and nullification of the ostracism. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: A Torah scholar can ostracize himself, and he can nullify the ostracism for himself. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he can nullify the ostracism for himself, just as he is able to do for others? The Gemara answers: It states this lest you say, as per the popular maxim: A prisoner cannot free himself from prison, and since he is ostracized he cannot dissolve the ostracism for himself; therefore it teaches us that he can do so. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where a Torah scholar might ostracize himself? It is like that case involving Mar Zutra Ḥasida. When a student in the academy was liable to receive excommunication, Mar Zutra Ḥasida would first excommunicate himself and then he would excommunicate the student of Torah. And when he would enter his home, he would dissolve the excommunication for himself and then dissolve the excommunication for the student. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva? It is as it is stated: “I have sworn and I have confirmed it, to observe Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106). The Gemara asks: Is he not already under oath from when each Jew took an oath at Mount Sinai to fulfill all the mitzvot? An oath cannot take effect if one is already bound by a different oath. Rather, it teaches us this: It is permitted for a man to motivate himself to fulfill the mitzvot in this manner, although the oath is not technically valid. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: One who says: I will rise early and study this chapter, or: I will study this tractate, has taken a great vow to the God of Israel. This clearly indicates that the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Is he not already under oath due to the general obligation to study Torah? And an oath does not take effect upon a preexisting oath. What is he teaching us? If one claims that Rav Giddel is teaching that such a vow may be made even merely to motivate oneself to study, this is the same as the first statement of Rav Giddel. The Gemara answers: It teaches us this: Since if he desires he can exempt himself from the obligation to study Torah with the recitation of Shema in the morning and evening, due to that reason the oath takes effect upon him and he is obligated to study the chapter or tractate that he specified. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to one who says to another: Let us rise early and study this chapter, and they agree to do so, it is incumbent upon him to rise early and be the first to arrive, because it was his initiative. There is an allusion to this in a verse, as it is stated: “And He said to me: Arise, go forth into the plain, and there I will speak with you. Then I arose and went forth into the plain; and behold, the glory of the Lord stood there” (Ezekiel 3:22–23). God invited Ezekiel to that place, and His glory arrived before Ezekiel did.

§ Rav Yosef said: One who was ostracized in a dream requires ten people to dissolve the ostracism for him. And the ostracism can be dissolved only by those who have studied halakha, i.e., by Torah scholars. However, if they have recited Mishna and have not studied halakha, no, they are not fit to dissolve the ostracism. And if there are not ten people who have studied halakha, then even those who have recited Mishna and have not studied halakha are fit to dissolve the ostracism. And if there are not even ten people who have studied Mishna, let him go and sit at the crossroads and extend a greeting of shalom, meaning peace, to ten people, who will respond with a similar greeting, until ten individuals who have studied halakha happen to come to him. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If he knows who excommunicated him in his dream, what is the halakha? Can that individual dissolve the excommunication for him? Rav Ashi said to him: It is possible that he was appointed by Heaven as an agent to excommunicate him, but he was not appointed as an agent to dissolve the excommunication for him. Consequently, the excommunication can be dissolved only by ten people. Rav Aḥa said to Rav Ashi: If he was excommunicated and the excommunication was dissolved for him in his dream, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to him: Just as it is impossible for the grain to grow without straw, so too, it is impossible to dream without idle matter. It is possible that the excommunication was real and the dissolution was not real, and he must have the ostracism dissolved by ten people. The Gemara relates that Ravina’s wife had taken a vow that he had not immediately nullified as a husband is entitled to do, and she wished to have it dissolved. Ravina came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to whether a husband can become an agent to express his wife’s regret to a court so that they can dissolve her vow? Rav Ashi said to him: If three people who can dissolve the vow were already assembled, yes; if they are not already assembled, no, a husband cannot serve as an agent to express his wife’s regret to the court. The Gemara comments: Learn from this incident three halakhot: Learn from this that a husband can become an agent to express his wife’s regret. And learn from this that a Sage is not permitted to dissolve a vow in the location of his teacher, which is why Ravina, a distinguished Sage, did not dissolve the vow without consulting Rav Ashi. And learn from this that when three people were already assembled, it seems well for a husband to serve as an agent to express his wife’s regret, but if the three people were not yet assembled he cannot serve as her agent. The Gemara adds: And one may dissolve excommunication even in the location of his teacher. And an individual Sage who is an expert can dissolve excommunication even without two other judges. § Rabbi Shimon bar Zevid said that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Tavla said that Rabbi Ḥiyya Arikha, the tall, of the school of Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rabbi Meyasha said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But to you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall” (Malachi 3:20)? “You that fear My name”; these are people who are afraid to mention the name of Heaven in vain. The verse states that a sun of righteousness with healing will arise to heal them. Abaye said: Learn from this verse that the dust [ḥirga] that is illuminated by the rays of the sun during the day heals, as it states: “With healing in its wings.” The Gemara comments: Abaye disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: There is no Gehenna in the World-to-Come. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will remove the sun from its sheath [minartika], and the righteous will be healed by it and the wicked will be punished by it. The righteous will be healed by it, as it is stated: “But to you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings”; and moreover, not only will they be healed by it but they will even be rejuvenated by it, as it is stated: “And you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall.” And the wicked will be punished by the same sun, as it is stated: “For behold, the day is coming, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall set them ablaze” (Malachi 3:19). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that the sun heals only in the World-to-Come, whereas Abaye interprets the verse as referring to this world.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except for one occasion. One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see that made you decide to destroy this beautiful hair of yours by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again. He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my city, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [babavua] in the water and my evil inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. I said to myself: Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? Why are you proud of someone who will eventually be food in the grave for worms and maggots, i.e., your body? I swear by the Temple service that I shall shave you for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). This is an example of voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, i.e., becoming a nazirite with entirely pure intentions rather than as a rash statement, e.g., while in a fit of anger.

The Gemara answers: Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The early generations of pious men would desire to bring a sin-offering but did not have the opportunity to do so because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not bring about a stumbling block through them, and they would not sin even unwittingly. What would they do? They would rise and volunteer naziriteship to the Omnipresent in order to be liable to bring a sin-offering of a nazirite to the Omnipresent. Rabbi Shimon says: They did not take a vow of naziriteship. Rather, one who would want to bring a burnt-offering would volunteer and bring it; one who would want to bring a peace-offering would volunteer and bring it; and one who would want to bring a thanks-offering and its four types of bread would volunteer and bring them. However, they did not volunteer naziriteship in order that they not be called sinners. According to Rabbi Shimon, naziriteship involves some element of sin, as it is stated: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul” (Numbers 6:11). § Abaye said: Shimon HaTzaddik, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar are all of the same opinion, that a nazirite is a sinner. The statements of Shimon HaTzaddik and Rabbi Shimon in this regard are that which we already said. And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished agrees, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished says: It is written with regard to the priest who sacrificed the offering of a nazirite: “And he shall make atonement for him, for that he sinned against the soul.” Against which soul did the nazirite sin? Rather, his sin is that he caused himself suffering by refraining from wine. Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: Just as this nazirite, who causes himself suffering only by refraining from wine, is called a sinner, one who causes himself suffering by refraining from everything is all the more so to be considered a sinner. From here it can be derived that whoever fasts unnecessarily is called a sinner.

MISHNA: This rule, that oaths can render actions, which do not have actual substance, either prohibited or obligatory, is a stringency of oaths vis-à-vis vows, which do not take effect with regard to matters that do not have actual substance. And there is also a stringency of vows vis-à-vis oaths. How so? With regard to one who said: Making a sukka is konam for me, or: Taking a lulav is konam for me, or: Donning phylacteries is konam for me, in the case of vows, the items are rendered forbidden, and he may not perform the mitzva until the vow is dissolved. However, in the case of similar oaths, these items are permitted, as one cannot take an oath to transgress the mitzvot.

The Gemara asks: What is different about a vow that enables it to override mitzvot? Granted, as it is written in the Torah: “When a man takes a vow to the Lord…he shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that even with regard to matters that pertain to the Lord, i.e., mitzvot, one shall not profane his word, as the vow takes effect. However, with regard to an oath it is also written in the same verse: “Or swears an oath” to God, “he shall not profane his word.” Abaye said: The distinction is not between oaths and vows per se, but rather between the phraseology in each case. How so? This case, in which the prohibition overrides the mitzva, is referring to one who said: The benefit derived from a sukka is hereby forbidden to me. Since the vow renders the sukka a forbidden object, it takes effect and overrides the mitzva, as one may not be fed what is forbidden to him, even if it is forbidden only to him. By contrast, that case, in which the prohibition does not take effect, is referring to one who said: I hereby take an oath that I will not derive benefit from the sukka. The oath does not take effect, as one is not entitled to take an oath to abstain from an act that he is obligated to perform. Rava said in objection to the explanation of Abaye: But were mitzvot given for the purpose of deriving benefit? The performance of mitzvot is not considered benefit. Why then would performance of the mitzva with the sukka be considered deriving benefit? Rather, Rava said a different explanation: This case is referring to one who said: Dwelling in a sukka is hereby prohibited to me, and that case is referring to one who said: I hereby take an oath that I will not dwell in a sukka.

§ It is stated in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, and he is taught not to take this kind of vow so that he will not take vows lightly. It is taught in a baraita: Never be accustomed to taking vows, because ultimately you will disregard them, and you will even abuse oaths, which are more grave. And do not regularly be around an ignoramus, because ultimately he will feed you untithed produce, as he is not careful to tithe. Do not regularly be by an ignorant priest, because ultimately he will feed you teruma due to his close relationship with you, and teruma is forbidden to a non-priest. And do not talk extensively with a woman, because ultimately you will come to adultery. Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, says: Anyone who watches women will ultimately come to sin, and anyone who looks at the heel of a woman will have indecent children as a punishment. Rav Yosef said: And this relates to all women, including his wife when she has the status of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The heel of a woman that is mentioned is not the heel of the foot, but the place of uncleanliness, i.e., the genitalia, and it is called a heel as a euphemism, as it is situated opposite the heel.

§ It is taught in a baraita: “That His fear may be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17); this is referring to shame, as shame causes one to blush. “That you not sin” (Exodus 20:17) teaches that shame leads to fear of sin. From here the Sages said: It is a good sign in a person that he is one who experiences shame. Others say: Any person who experiences shame will not quickly sin, and conversely, one who does not have the capacity to be shamefaced, it is known that his forefathers did not stand at Mount Sinai. § Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four matters: For what reason do lame people come into existence? It is because their fathers overturn their tables, i.e., they engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical way. For what reason do mute people come into existence? It is because their fathers kiss that place of nakedness. For what reason do deaf people come into existence? It is because their parents converse while engaging in sexual intercourse. For what reason do blind people come into existence? It is because their fathers stare at that place. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, was asked: For what reason are your children so beautiful? She said to them: My husband does not converse with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he converses with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, he reveals a handbreadth of my body and covers a handbreadth, and he covers himself up as though he were being coerced by a demon and is covering himself out of fear. And I said to my husband: What is the reason for this behavior? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on another woman, i.e., think about another woman; if a man thinks about another woman during sexual intercourse with his wife, his children consequently come close to receiving a mamzer status, i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore I engage in sexual intercourse with you at an hour when there are no people in the street, and in this manner. In any event, it can be seen from her words that a Sage conversed with his wife while engaging in sexual intercourse with her. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This permission to converse with her is with regard to matters of sexual intercourse, whereas that restriction of conversation is with regard to other matters that are not related to sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman. Ameimar said: Who are the ministering angels that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai mentioned? He was referring to the Sages, for whom he employed the honorary title: Ministering angels. Because if you say that he was referring to actual ministering angels, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai? The ministering angels are more knowledgeable about the forming of the fetus than people are. Clearly, if the ministering angels were the source for the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai it would have been imperative to heed his instructions. And why are the Sages called ministering angels? Because they stand out like ministering angels, as they are recognized by their clothing. The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so? Similarly, a certain woman who came before Rav said to him: My teacher, I set a table for him and he turned it over. He said to her: In what way is this case different from a fish [binnita] that one may eat any way he wishes?

§ The verse states: “And that you not go about after your own heart” (Numbers 15:39). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that it is derived from here that a man should not drink from this cup while setting his eyes on another cup, i.e., one should not engage in sexual intercourse with one woman while thinking about another woman. Ravina said: This statement is not necessary with regard to an unrelated woman. Rather, it is necessary only to state that even with regard to his own two wives, he should not engage in sexual intercourse with one while thinking about the other. The verse states: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and those that transgress against Me” (Ezekiel 20:38). Rabbi Levi said: These are children of those who have nine traits, who are defective from their conception and from whom rebels and transgressors emerge. The mnemonic for these nine traits is children of the acronym aleph, samekh, nun, tav, mem, shin, gimmel, ayin, ḥet. The children of nine traits are as follows: Children of fear [eima], i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was raped [anusa]; children of a hated woman [senua], i.e., a woman who was hated by her husband; children of ostracism [niddui], i.e., one of the parents was ostracized by the court; children of substitution [temura], i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman; children of strife [meriva], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were quarreling; children of drunkenness [shikhrut], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were drunk; children of a woman who was divorced in the heart [gerushat halev], i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; children of mixture [irbuveya], i.e., the man did not know with which woman he was engaging in intercourse; children of a shameless woman [ḥatzufa] who demands of her husband that he engage in intercourse with her. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any man whose wife demands of him that he engage in sexual intercourse with her will have children the likes of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses our teacher? As it is stated: “Get you wise men, and understanding, and well known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13); and it is written subsequently: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well known” (Deuteronomy 1:15). And it does not say that they were understanding. Evidently, even Moses could not find understanding men in his generation. And by contrast, it is written: “Issachar is a large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14). The Sages transmitted a tradition that this is an allusion to the incident when Jacob came in from the field riding on a donkey, and Leah went out to greet him, saying: “You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Issachar was conceived from their subsequent sexual intercourse. And it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times” (I Chronicles 12:33). The descendants of Issachar were understanding men. It is derived from here that a woman who demands from her husband that he engage in sexual intercourse with her has a positive effect on their children. The Gemara answers: That baraita is not referring to a woman who demands intercourse explicitly, but rather to one who entices her husband, so that he understands that she wants to engage in sexual intercourse with him. They consequently have excellent children.

The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [pinekas] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him. Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is “And after vows to make inquiry” (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: And although Rabbi Yannai broached dissolution with him in this way, we do not broach dissolution in this manner for one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful. And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What type of dissolution did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: Anyone who verbally expresses the language of a vow, it is appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but he has another option: “The tongue of the wise is health,” since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution. We also do not broach dissolution using this other method, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: One who vows is considered as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, which is prohibited, and one who fulfills this vow is considered as if he sacrifices an offering on it. With the first clause, we may broach dissolution by informing the one who vowed that vowing is akin to building an altar outside the Temple, but with regard to the latter clause there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution by telling someone that fulfilling a vow is like sacrificing an offering on a forbidden altar, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution with it. Rav Kahana taught this halakha in this wording, i.e., the wording that was just cited. However, Rav Tavyumei taught this halakha in this way: With regard to what is written in the last clause, all agree that we do not broach dissolution in this way. With regard to what is written in the first clause, there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution in this manner, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution in this manner either. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not broach dissolution using either the language in the first clause or the language in the latter clause. And furthermore, we also do not broach dissolution with this statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who vows, although he fulfills it, he is called wicked. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing there will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23), and he derives the word ḥadala here from the word ḥadala elsewhere. It is written here: “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing,” and it is written there: “There the wicked cease [ḥadlu] from troubling” (Job 3:17). The parallel language demonstrates that vowing is an act of the wicked. Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn in the mishna (9a): If one says he vows like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. If he says: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or with regard to obligating himself in an offering, or with regard to taking an oath. From here it is also apparent that vowing is an act of the wicked. § Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive.

§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive. And not only that, but also hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Which is the matter of sickness that causes failing of the eyes in pain and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this is referring to hemorrhoids. The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other. The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. When Ulla came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ulla said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. He said to him: You saved yourself by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life. With regard to the narrative itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered: Now, it is written in the passage of curses: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart” (Deuteronomy 28:65) and this is written with regard to Babylonia, because in the exile an individual possesses a trembling and angry heart. How is it possible that in Eretz Yisrael a person can get so angry as to murder another? Ulla said to him: At that moment when the incident occurred we had not yet crossed the Jordan River, and we were still outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the curse of a heart of anger was relevant. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Anyone who gets angry, at that moment even the Divine Presence is not important to him, as it is stated: “The wicked, in the height of his anger says: He will not require; all his thoughts are: There is no God” (Psalms 10:4). Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Anyone who gets angry forgets his learning and increases foolishness, as it is stated: “For anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and it is written: “But a fool unfolds folly” (Proverbs 13:16). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to one who gets angry, it is acknowledged that his sins are more numerous than his merits, as it is stated: “And a wrathful man abounds in transgression” (Proverbs 29:22). Rav Adda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Had Israel not sinned in earlier times they would have been given the five books of the Torah and the book of Joshua alone. They needed the book of Joshua because it includes the arrangement of Eretz Yisrael. Since it contains the division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes, it was required for all generations, but the other books of the prophets primarily detail the history of how Israel angered God and He sent prophets to admonish them. What is the reason, i.e., what is the allusion to this idea? It is stated: “For in much wisdom is much vexation” (Ecclesiastes 1:18). All the wisdom that the Jews possess from the books of the Bible is the result of their angering God. § Rabbi Asi said: One does not attend to a request to dissolve a vow in which the name of the God of Israel is invoked because such a declaration is especially stringent, except for a case where one swears by the God of Israel and adds: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife because she stole my purse or she hit my son, and then it became known that she did not steal or did not hit his son. In such a case, the vow can be dissolved because the vow was made in error, but in other cases such a vow is not dissolved.

§ Rava praised his student Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman by saying that he is a great man. Rav Naḥman said to him: When Rav Seḥora comes to you, bring him to me. Rav Seḥora had a vow that he wanted to dissolve, so Rava sent Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman. He came before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman, who wanted to dissolve the vow, said to him: Did you vow with such a matter in mind? He said to him: Yes, so Rav Naḥman did not dissolve the vow. He then asked again: Did you vow with such a matter in mind, and suggested another possibility. He said to him: Yes. This happened several times, and every time Rav Naḥman attempted to broach an opening, Rav Seḥora replied that he had that in mind when he made the vow. Rav Naḥman became upset with him because it appeared that Rav Seḥora was making it unnecessarily difficult for him to dissolve the vow. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go to your tent [kilakh] because I do not want to talk to you. Rav Seḥora went out and made the following opening for himself that would enable the dissolution of his vow, based on a mishna in tractate Avot (2:1): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: What is the proper path that a person should choose? He should choose any path that is considered a glory to the one who does it and a glory from his fellow men. Rav Seḥora then reasoned that now that Rav Naḥman became upset at him, he would not have made the vow with knowledge of this fact, since he would not receive glory from his fellow men, and based on this he dissolved the vow for himself.

MISHNA: One who takes a vow not to derive benefit from those that have dark heads [sheḥorei harosh] is prohibited from deriving benefit from those that are bald, although they have no hair at all, and from the elderly who have white hair. This is because the term is not to be understood in its simple meaning but rather in a broader manner. But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads. GEMARA: What is the reason that the term dark heads does not exclude those that are bald? Because it does not say: From those with hair. The mishna states: But he is permitted to derive benefit from women and from children, because only men are called: Those with dark heads. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes uncover their heads. They can be called dark heads since, for the most part, they have dark hair which is often uncovered. But women’s heads are always covered, and children’s heads are always uncovered, and the expression dark heads is referring to men whose hair is sometimes seen.

MISHNA: If one says: Benefiting from those who are uncircumcised is konam for me, he is permitted to derive benefit from uncircumcised Jews because they are not regarded as uncircumcised, but he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world. Conversely, if he said: Benefiting from those who are circumcised is konam for me, he is prohibited from deriving benefit even from uncircumcised Jews and he is permitted to derive benefit from the circumcised of the nations of the world, as the term uncircumcised is used only to name the nations of the world, as it is stated: “For all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25), and it says: “And this uncircumcised Philistine shall be” (I Samuel 17:36), and it says: “Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph” (II Samuel 1:20). These verses indicate that ordinary gentiles are referred to as uncircumcised, regardless of whether they are actually circumcised. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The foreskin is repulsive, as is evident from the fact that the wicked are disgraced through it, as it is stated: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will punish all them that are circumcised in their uncircumcision: Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that have the corners of their hair polled, that dwell in the wilderness; for all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart” (Jeremiah 9:25), which indicates that there is an element of disgrace associated with the foreskin. Rabbi Yishmael says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that thirteen covenants were sealed with regard to it, for the word covenant appears thirteen times in the biblical passage that discusses circumcision (Genesis, chapter 17). Rabbi Yosei says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the strict halakhot of Shabbat, as circumcision is performed even if the eighth day following the birth of a son occurs on Shabbat, despite the fact that circumcision violates the prohibition of labor on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, as is evident from the fact that the punishment of Moses the righteous for not circumcising his son when he was capable of doing so was not postponed for even a full hour (see Exodus 4:24–26). Rabbi Neḥemya says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that it overrides the prohibitions associated with leprosy. If leprosy is found on the foreskin of an infant, although it is generally prohibited to cut the afflicted area, it is permitted to do so to perform the mitzva of circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that despite all the mitzvot that Abraham our Patriarch did, he was not called wholehearted until he circumcised himself, as it is stated at the time that the mitzva was given to him: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1). Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that if not for it the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not have created His world, as it is stated: “Thus says the Lord: If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the person’s body. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: So great is the mitzva of circumcision that all the merits that Moses our teacher accrued when he performed mitzvot did not protect him when he was negligent about performing the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And the Lord met him and sought to kill him” (Exodus 4:24). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Heaven forbid that Moses our teacher was neglectful of the mitzva of circumcision. Rather, this is what he said: If I circumcise the child now and depart to begin my journey, it is a danger for the child, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain” (Genesis 34:25), which indicates that the pain of circumcision lasts for several days and the child may be in danger while in pain. If I circumcise him immediately and wait three days and only then embark on the journey, this is problematic, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me: “Go, return into Egypt” (Exodus 4:19), i.e., go immediately. For these reasons Moses did not circumcise the child immediately, but no neglect existed on his part. But according to this explanation, for what reason was Moses punished? Because he was occupied with lodging first and did not immediately perform the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place” (Exodus 4:24). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It was not Moses our teacher that Satan wanted to kill, but rather, that infant who was not circumcised, as it is stated: “Surely a bridegroom of blood are you to me” (Exodus 4:25). Go out and see: Who does it make sense would be the one that is called the bridegroom in this instance? You must say this is the infant, since he is the one who entered the covenant of Abraham by means of the circumcision. Rabbi Yehuda bar Bizna taught: At the time that Moses our teacher was negligent about the circumcision, the destructive angels named Af, meaning anger, and Ḥeima, meaning wrath, came and swallowed him, and only his legs were left outside. Immediately, “Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son” (Exodus 4:25), and immediately “He let him alone” (Exodus 4:26). At that moment, Moses our teacher wanted to kill them, as it is stated: “Cease from anger [af ] and forsake wrath [ḥeima]” (Psalms 37:8), which indicates that he wanted to harm them. And there are those who say: He killed the angel named Ḥeima, as it is stated: “Wrath is not in me” (Isaiah 27:4). The Gemara asks: How is it possible to say that he killed Ḥeima? Isn’t it written that Moses himself said much later: “For I was in dread of the anger and wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19)? The Gemara answers: There are two types of wrath. And if you wish, say that the army of Ḥeima remained but not the angel itself. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Great is the mitzva of circumcision, for there is no one who was engaged in mitzvot like Abraham our Patriarch, and yet he was called wholehearted only due to the mitzva of circumcision, as it is stated: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), and it is written in the next verse: “And I will make My covenant between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2), and Abraham was then commanded with regard to circumcision. This indicates that he was not called wholehearted until he performed circumcision. Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that it is equal to all the mitzvot of the Torah, as it is stated at the giving of the Torah: “For according to these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), and “covenant” refers to circumcision. Alternatively, so great is the mitzva of circumcision that if not for circumcision heaven and earth would not have been established, as it is stated: “If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25), and the covenant that exists day and night is the covenant of circumcision, as it is always found on the person’s body. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the words of Rabbi Eliezer, for Rabbi Eliezer said: Great is the Torah, for if not for Torah, heaven and earth would not have been established, as it is stated: “If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). According to Rabbi Eliezer, the covenant that exists day and night is the Torah, as it says: “You should contemplate it day and night” (Joshua 1:8). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham our Patriarch: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), a sensation of trembling seized him and he said: Perhaps there is something disgraceful about me due to a transgression that I committed, and therefore I cannot be called complete. When God said to him: “And I will make My covenant between Me and you” (Genesis 17:2), his mind was set at ease, since he understood that the removal of the foreskin that he was now commanded to do was the reason he had not yet achieved completion. The Gemara expounds the verse “and He brought him outside” (Genesis 15:5): Abraham said before Him: Master of the Universe, I looked at my constellation and according to it I will have only one son, and a son has already been born to me, i.e., Ishmael. He said to him: Emerge from your astrology because there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as they are not subject to the influence of astrology. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who conducts himself with wholeheartedness, the Holy One, Blessed be He, treats him with wholeheartedness, as it is stated: “With the devout You act devoutly, and with the one who is strong in his wholeheartedness You act wholeheartedly” (II Samuel 22:26). Rabbi Hoshaya said: Anyone who acts wholeheartedly, time will stand for him, i.e., he will be successful, as it is stated: “Walk before Me and you should be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1), and it is written: “And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:4). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Anyone who divines, i.e., he guesses and looks for signs about the future, the sign will injure him, as it is stated: “For there is to him [lo] divination with Jacob” (Numbers 23:23). The Gemara asks: But it is written lo with the letters lamed alef, meaning “no divination,” as opposed to with the letters lamed vav, meaning “there is to him divination.” The straightforward meaning of the verse is that there is no divination with regard to Jacob. Rather, the reason that he will be injured is not based on the verse but rather due to the concept of measure for measure: Since he attempts to tell his fortune, it injures him. Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, teaches: Any person who does not divine his future is brought inside a partition close to God to a place that even the ministering angels cannot enter inside, as it is stated: “For there is no divination with Jacob, neither is there any enchantment with Israel, now it is said to Jacob and Israel what has God wrought” (Numbers 23:23). In other words, matters are revealed to Israel that even the angels do not know, since Israel is closer to God than the angels. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: For what reason was Abraham our Patriarch punished and his children enslaved to Egypt for 210 years? Because he made a draft [angarya] of Torah scholars, as it is stated: “He led forth his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). These trained men that he took to war were actually his disciples, who were Torah scholars. And Shmuel said: Because he greatly examined [hifriz] the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He was punished because he distanced people from entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, as it is stated that the king of Sodom said to him: “Give me the people and take the goods to yourself” (Genesis 14:21), but Abraham refused to take any goods either. If he had not listened to the king of Sodom and had allowed the people to remain with him, he would have brought the prisoners under the wings of the Divine Presence. The Gemara returns to discuss one of the verses cited previously: “He led forth [vayyarek] his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). Rav said: He showered them [horikan] with Torah like someone who pours from one vessel into another, and Shmuel said: He showered them [horikan] with gold and gave them an abundance of money so that they would go to war with him. The Torah states that he took “eighteen and three hundred” (Genesis 14:14) men to war. Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: Eliezer was equivalent to all of them. There are those who say: Only Eliezer is referred to here, as the numerical value of the letters of his name is this amount, i.e., 318. And Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: Abraham recognized his Creator at the age of three years, as it is stated: “Because [ekev] Abraham hearkened to My voice” (Genesis 26:5). The numerical value of the letters of the word ekev is 172, indicating that he observed the halakha for this many years. If Abraham lived until 175 then his first recognition of the Creator must have been at the age of three. And Rami bar Abba said in a similar manner: The letters of the term the Satan [haSatan] in numerical value is 364, which equals the number of days of the year, except for Yom Kippur, during which he has no power. And Rami bar Abba said: It is written “Abram,” and after he was commanded to perform circumcision it is written “Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). Initially the Holy One, Blessed be He, enthroned him as ruler over 243 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abram. And in the end, after he was circumcised, He enthroned him as ruler over 248 limbs, which is the numerical equivalent of the letters of the word Abraham. These are the additional limbs: Two eyes, and two ears, and the tip of the sex organ. Following his circumcision, he had total control over them, and they performed only according to his will. And Rami bar Abba said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There was a little city and few men in it, and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a man poor and wise, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man” (Ecclesiastes 9:14–15)? “A little city,” this is referring to the body; “and few men in it,” this is referring to the limbs; “and there came a great king against it and besieged it,” this is referring to the evil inclination; “and built great bulwarks against it,” these are sins. The Gemara expounds on the next section of the verse: “Now there was found in it a man poor and wise,” this is referring to the good inclination; “and he by his wisdom delivered the city,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds that are caused by the good inclination. “Yet no man remembered that same poor man” means that when the evil inclination overcomes the good inclination no one remembers the good inclination. The Gemara interprets the following verse in a similar homiletical manner: “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city” (Ecclesiastes 7:19). “Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man,” this is referring to repentance and good deeds. “More than ten rulers,” these are the two eyes, and two ears, and two hands, and two legs, and the tip of the sex organ, and the mouth, which are the limbs that are used by a person to interact with the world. Rabbi Zekharya said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted the priesthood to emerge from Shem, so that his children would be priests, as it is stated: “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Once Melchizedek, traditionally identified as Shem, placed the blessing of Abraham before the blessing of the Omnipresent, He had the priesthood emerge from Abraham in particular, and not from any other descendant of Shem. As it is stated: “And he blessed him and said: Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God the Most High” (Genesis 14:19–20). Abraham said to him: And does one place the blessing of the servant before the blessing of his master? You should have blessed God first. Immediately the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave the priesthood to Abraham, as it is stated: “The Lord says to my lord: Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalms 110:1), and afterward it is written: “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent: you shall be a priest forever, because you are a king of righteousness [al divrati malki tzedek]” (Psalms 110:4), which is explained homiletically to mean: Due to the improper words [divrati] of Melchizedek, the offspring of Abraham shall be priests of God forever. The Gemara comments: And this is as it is written: “And he was priest of God the Most High” (Genesis 14:18), which emphasizes that he, Melchizedek, is a priest, but his children will not be priests.

§ We learned in the mishna that one teaches someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he may not teach him Bible? Is it due to the fact that the teacher benefits the one for whom benefit from him is forbidden by teaching him Bible? When he teaches him midrash he also benefits him. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a place where one takes payment for teaching Bible and one does not take payment for teaching midrash. By teaching him Bible, the one for whom benefit is forbidden - benefits from the fact that he does not pay. The Gemara asks: Why was the halakha stated without qualification? There is no apparent fundamental difference between Bible and midrash. Why did the mishna refer specifically to a case where payment is taken for teaching Bible? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even in a place where one takes payment for teaching, for teaching Bible it is permitted to take payment, but for teaching midrash it is not permitted to take payment. The Gemara asks: In what way is midrash different from Bible, that one may not take payment for teaching it? Based on that which is written, which Moses said to the people: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and laws” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and also that which is written: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and laws, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the midst of the land where you go in to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:5), God said: Just as I teach you for free, without payment, so too you also shall teach for free. There should be no difference between Bible and midrash, and Bible too, like midrash, should be taught for free.

Rav said: As Bible is typically taught to children, one who teaches Bible takes payment for watching the children. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He takes payment for teaching punctuation of the text with cantillation notes.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the payment for teaching Bible is payment for watching the children, what is the reason that he did not say that it is payment for teaching punctuation of the text with cantillation notes? The Gemara answers: He holds that the punctuation of the text with cantillation notes is by Torah law; therefore, it is included in the prohibition against taking payment for teaching Torah. This is as Rav Ika bar Avin said that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they read in the book, in the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The Gemara explains: “They read in the book, in the Torah of God”; that is the Bible. “Distinctly”; that is the Aramaic translation. “And they gave the sense”; these are the division into verses. “And caused them to understand the reading”; this is punctuation of the text with cantillation notes, which facilitate the understanding of the verses. And some say: These are the traditions that determine the proper vocalization of the Bible. Rav holds that the cantillation notes are an integral part of Torah study. On a related note, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The vocalization of the scribes, and the ornamentation of the scribes, and the verses with words that are read but not written, and those that are written but not read are all halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara elaborates: The vocalization of the scribes is referring to words that when they appear at the end of phrases, clauses, or verses, their vocalization changes, e.g., eretz with a segol under the letter alef to aretz with a kamatz under the letter alef; shamayim with a pataḥ under the letter mem, to shamayim with a kamatz under the letter mem; and mitzrayim with a pataḥ under the letter reish, to mitzrayim with a kamatz under the letter reish. The ornamentation of the scribes are expressions that the scribes understood in a manner that differs slightly from its plain understanding. For example: “Then [aḥar] go on” (Genesis 18:5); “then [aḥar] she will go” (Genesis 24:55); “afterward [aḥar] you will be gathered” (Numbers 31:2); “the singers go before, the minstrels follow after [aḥar]” (Psalms 68:26); “Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains” (Psalms 36:7). Words that are read but not written are included in the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. For example, the word “Euphrates” that is in the phrase “as he went to establish his control over the river Euphrates” (II Samuel 8:3) is not written in the text of the Bible. The same is true for the word “man” that is in the verse “now the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as if a man inquired of the word of God” (II Samuel 16:23); and for the word “come” that is in the verse “behold, the days come, says the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner” (Jeremiah 31:37); and for “her” that is in the phrase “let her not have escape” (Jeremiah 50:29); unto that is in the verse “it has been told me, all that you have done unto your mother-in-law” (Ruth 2:11); and for “to me” that is found in the passage “and she said unto her: All that you say to me I will do. And she went down to the threshing floor” (Ruth 3:4–5); and for “to me” that is in the verse “he gave me these six measures of barley; for he said to me” (Ruth 3:17). These words are read but not written.

§ Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Moses became wealthy only from the waste remaining from hewing the Tablets of the Covenant, as it is stated: “Hew for you two tablets of stone like the first” (Exodus 34:1). “Hew for you” means that their waste shall be yours. As the tablets were crafted from valuable gems, their remnants were similarly valuable. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The Torah was given initially only to Moses and his descendants, as it is stated: “Write for you” (Exodus 34:27), and it is also stated: “Hew for you” (Exodus 34:1), meaning: Just as their waste is yours, so too their writing is yours. However, Moses treated the Torah with generosity and gave it to the Jewish people. And about him, the verse says: “He that has a bountiful eye shall be blessed, as he gives of his bread to the poor” (Proverbs 22:9). Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from the verse that states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and laws” (Deuteronomy 4:14). This indicates that Moses was commanded to teach Torah to the Jewish people from the outset. The Gemara answers: The verse means: And the Lord commanded the Torah to me, Moses, and I, on my own initiative, decided to teach you its statutes and laws. The Gemara cites an additional verse proving that God commanded to teach the Jewish people from the outset: “Behold, I have taught you statutes and laws, as the Lord my God commanded me” (Deuteronomy 4:5). The Gemara answers: The Lord commanded the Torah to me, Moses, and I decided to teach you statutes and laws. The Gemara cites an additional verse: “Now therefore write this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). Apparently, Moses was commanded to teach the Torah to the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the song of Ha’azinu (Deuteronomy 31) alone and not to the rest of the Torah. The Gemara asks: But the continuation of that cited verse: “That this song may be a witness for Me among the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19), indicates that the reference is to the entire Torah, in which the mitzvot are written. Rather, the Torah was given from the outset to all of the Jewish people, and when Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that the Torah was given exclusively to Moses, he was referring merely to the profound analysis of the Torah. Moses opted to teach it to the people on his own initiative. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence only upon one who is mighty, and wealthy, and wise, and humble. And all of these qualities are derived from Moses. He was mighty, as it is written: “And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle” (Exodus 40:19), and the Master said: Moses, our teacher, spread it himself. And it is written: “Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and a cubit and a half the breadth of each board” (Exodus 26:16). Moses was tall and strong enough to spread the tent over the boards alone. The Gemara asks: Say that he was tall and thin, and the fact that he was mighty cannot be derived. Rather, the fact that Moses was mighty is derived from this verse, as it is written: “And I took hold of the two tablets, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 9:17), and it is taught in a baraita: The tablets, their length was six handbreadths, and their width was six handbreadths, and their thickness was three handbreadths. If Moses was capable of lifting and casting a burden that heavy, apparently he was mighty. Moses was wealthy, as it is written: “Hew for you” (Exodus 34:1), from which it was derived: The waste of the Tablets of the Covenant shall be yours, and that waste consisted of precious stones. That Moses was wise is derived from the statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: Fifty measures of understanding were created in the world, and all were given to Moses except one, as it is stated: “Yet you have deprived him of little, of God” (Psalms 8:6). He lacked only complete knowledge of God. Moses was humble, as it is written: “Now the man Moses was very humble” (Numbers 12:3). § Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All the prophets were wealthy. From where do we derive this? It is derived from Moses, and from Samuel, and from Amos, and from Jonah, who were all wealthy. Moses was wealthy, as it is written: “I have not taken one donkey from them” (Numbers 16:15). The Gemara analyzes the statement of Moses. If he said that he did not take a donkey without payment, was his intent to exclude himself from the category of one who takes items that belong to others without paying? That is obvious, as one who does so is a thief. Rather, he said that even with payment he did not take a donkey. Apparently, he was wealthy and did not need to purchase anything. The Gemara rejects this proof. Perhaps, on the contrary, he did not purchase a donkey because he was poor and could not afford it. Rather, it is derived from the verse written with regard to the Tablets of the Covenant: “Hew for you” (Exodus 34:1), which indicates that their waste shall be yours. Samuel was wealthy, as it is written: “Here I am; witness against me before the Lord, and before His anointed: Whose ox have I taken, or whose donkey have I taken?” (I Samuel 12:3). If he is saying that he did not take an ox or a donkey for free, was his intent to exclude himself from the category of one who takes items that belong to others for free? Rather, he is saying that even with payment he did not take a donkey or an ox. Apparently, he was wealthy. The Gemara rejects this proof. Perhaps, on the contrary, the reason he did not purchase the donkeys is due to the fact that he was poor. Rather, the fact that Samuel was wealthy is derived from here, as it is written: “And his return was to Ramah, for there was his house” (I Samuel 7:17). And Rava said: Everywhere he went, his home was with him. He was so wealthy that he could afford to hire servants and pack animals to take all his belongings from place to place. Rava said: That which is stated with regard to Samuel is greater than that which is stated with regard to Moses, as with regard to Moses our teacher it is written: “I have not taken one donkey from them” (Numbers 16:15), meaning that he did not take an item from another against his will even with payment. Whereas with regard to Samuel, even with the consent of the owner, he would not rent an item from him, as it is written: “And they said: You have not defrauded us, nor oppressed us [ratzotanu], neither have you taken anything from any man’s hand” (I Samuel 12:4), even with his consent [ratzon]. Amos was wealthy, as it is written: “Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah: I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore-trees” (Amos 7:14). Amos is saying, as Rav Yosef translates: Because I am the owner of flocks and I have sycamores in the lowland, and I do not come to prophesy for financial gain. Apparently, Amos was wealthy. Jonah was wealthy, as it is written: “And he went down to Jaffa, and found a ship going to Tarshish, so he paid its cost and went down into it” (Jonah 1:3), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He paid the cost of the entire ship. Rabbi Romanus said: The cost for the entire ship was four thousand gold dinars. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Initially, Moses would study Torah and forget it, until it was given to him as a gift, as it is stated: “And He gave it to Moses when he concluded speaking with him” (Exodus 31:18). Once the Torah was given him as a gift, it became his and he was able to remember it. MISHNA: And with regard to one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, that other person may feed his wife and children, although the one who is bound by the vow is obligated in their support and benefits when another supports them. And he may not feed his animal, whether it is a kosher animal or whether it is a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Eliezer says: He may feed the non-kosher animal, and he may not feed the kosher animal. The Rabbis said to him: What is the difference between kosher and non-kosher animals in this respect? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: The kosher animal’s being belongs to Heaven, and the animal’s body is the property of its owner, as he can eat it. Therefore, the owner benefits directly when another feeds his animal. And a non-kosher animal,

§ Apropos the halakhot of visiting the ill, the Gemara cites related statements. Reish Lakish said: From where is there an allusion from the Torah to visiting the ill? It is as it is stated: “If these men die the common death of all men, and be visited after the visitation of all men, then the Lord has not sent me” (Numbers 16:29). The Gemara asks: From where in this verse may visiting the ill be inferred? Rava said that this is what Moses is saying: If these men, the congregation of Korah, die the common death of all men, who become ill, and are confined to their beds, and people come to visit them; if that happens to them, what do the people say? They say: The Lord has not sent me for this task. Apropos Korah and his congregation, Rava interpreted the repetitive formulation in this verse homiletically: “But if the Lord will create a creation [beria yivra], and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them, and all that is theirs, and they will descend alive into the pit, then you shall understand that these men have despised God” (Numbers 16:30). Here, Moses is saying: If Gehenna is already a creation [beria] and exists, that is optimal; if not, God should create [yivra] it now. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was there uncertainty at that point as to whether Gehenna had already been created? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Seven phenomena were created before the world was created, and they are: Torah, and repentance, the Garden of Eden, and Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, and the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Gemara provides sources for each of these phenomena. Torah was created before the world was created, as it is written: “The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old” (Proverbs 8:22). Based on the subsequent verses, this is referring to the Torah. Repentance was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalms 90:2), and it is written immediately afterward: “You return man to contrition; and You say: Repent, children of man” (Psalms 90:3). The Garden of Eden was created before the world was created, as it is written: “And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden eastward [mikedem]” (Genesis 2:8). “Eastward [mikedem]” is interpreted in the sense of before [mikodem], i.e., before the world was created. Gehenna was created before the world was created, as it is written: “For its hearth is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The hearth, i.e., Gehenna, was created before the world was created. The Throne of Glory was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your throne is established of old, You are from everlasting” (Psalms 93:2). The Temple was created before the world was created, as it is written: “Your Throne of Glory on high from the beginning, in the place of our Temple” (Jeremiah 17:12). The name of the Messiah was created before the world was created, as it is written about him: “May his name endure forever; his name existed before the sun” (Psalms 72:17). The name of the Messiah predated the creation of the sun and the rest of the world. Apparently, Rava’s explanation that Moses was uncertain whether Gehenna had been created yet is contradicted by this baraita. Rather, the interpretation of the repetitive formulation of the verse is that this is what Moses is saying: If the opening was created for Gehenna, that is optimal, and if not, the Lord should create it now. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)? How, then, could Moses request that God create the mouth of Gehenna now? The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said: If the mouth of Gehenna is not close to here, let God bring it closer. Apropos the conflict between Moses and Korah, the Gemara cites an additional verse that Rava interpreted homiletically, and some say that it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation [zevula], at the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear” (Habakkuk 3:11)? What do the sun and moon seek in zevul, which is the fourth heaven; aren’t they fixed in rakia, the second heaven? Rather, this teaches that the sun and moon ascended from rakia to zevul and said before Him: Master of the Universe! If You do justice for the son of Amram, i.e., Moses, in his dispute with Korah, we will continue to illuminate the world, and if not, we will not illuminate the world. At that moment, the Holy One, Blessed be He, shot arrows, and threw spears at them, and said to them: Each and every day idolaters bow to you and you continue to illuminate the world and do not protest. In My honor, you did not protest, but in honor of flesh and blood, you protested? And ever since, each and every day the heavenly hosts shoot arrows and throw spears at the sun and the moon, and only then do they emerge and illuminate the world, as it is stated: “At the light of Your arrows as they go, at the shining of Your glittering spear” (Habakkuk 3:11). § Returning to the topic of visiting the ill, the Gemara states: It is taught in a baraita: The mitzva of visiting the ill has no fixed measure. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Has no fixed measure? Rav Yosef thought to say: There is no fixed measure for the granting of its reward. Abaye said to him: And do all other mitzvot have a fixed measure for the granting of their reward? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Avot 2:1): Be as meticulous in the observance of a minor mitzva as a major one, as you do not know the granting of reward for mitzvot. Rather, Abaye said: There is no fixed measure for the disparity between the ill person and his visitor, as even a prominent person pays a visit to a lowly person and should not say that doing so is beneath a person of his standing. Rava said: There is no fixed measure for the number of times that one should visit the ill, as even one hundred times a day is appropriate. Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: Anyone who visits an ill person takes from him one-sixtieth of his suffering. The Sages said to him: If so, let sixty people enter to visit him, and stand him up, and restore him to health. Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said to them: It is like the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that each of one’s daughters inherits one-tenth of his possessions. His intent was that each daughter would receive one-tenth of the remainder after the previous daughter took her portion. Here too, each visitor takes from the ill person one-sixtieth of the suffering that remains, and consequently a degree of suffering will always remain with the ill person. Furthermore, visiting is effective in easing the suffering of the ill person only when the visitor is one born under the same constellation as the ill person. The Gemara elaborates on the tenths of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A daughter who is supported from the property of her brothers after the death of their father receives one-tenth of the estate as her dowry. The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: According to your statement, in the case of one who has ten daughters and a son, no property at all remains for the son in a place where there are daughters, as they receive the entire inheritance. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: The first daughter takes one-tenth of the estate, the second takes one-tenth of that which the first left of the inheritance, the third takes one-tenth of that which the second left of the inheritance, and so on. After each succeeding daughter takes her share, they pool their resources and then divide the property equally. Therefore, the son is left with a share of the inheritance. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. Rav Kahana went out and announced: Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. There was no one who came to visit him. Rav Kahana said to the Sages: Didn’t the incident involving one of the students of Rabbi Akiva who became sick transpire in that manner? In that case, the Sages did not enter to visit him, and Rabbi Akiva entered to visit him and instructed his students to care for him. And since they swept and sprinkled water on the dirt floor before the sick student, he recovered. The student said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, you revived me. Rabbi Akiva went out and taught: With regard to anyone who does not visit the ill, it is as though he is spilling blood, as it could be that the sick person has no one to care for him. If there are no visitors, no one will know his situation and therefore no one will come to his aid. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Anyone who visits the ill causes that he will live, and anyone who does not visit the ill causes that he will die. The Gemara asks: In what way are his actions the cause of that result? If we say that anyone who visits the ill pleads for mercy from God that he will live, and anyone who does not visit the ill pleads for mercy that he will die, does it enter your mind that he would pray that the sick person will die? Rather, anyone who does not visit the ill does not plead for mercy for him, neither that he will live nor that he will die. Since he might have saved the sick person with prayers had he visited, his failure to visit is tantamount to causing his death. The Gemara relates with regard to Rava: On the first day that he was ill, he would say to his family: Do not reveal to any person that I am ill, so that his luck not suffer. From this point forward, when his situation deteriorated he would say to them: Go and proclaim in the marketplace that I am ill, as thereby let all who hate me rejoice over my distress, and it is written: “Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles; lest the Lord see it, and it displease Him, and He turn away His wrath from him” (Proverbs 24:17–18). And let all who love me pray that God have mercy upon me. Rav said: Anyone who visits the ill is spared from the judgment of Gehenna, as it is stated: “Happy is he that considers the poor; the Lord will deliver him in the day of evil” (Psalms 41:2). In this verse, the term poor [dal] means nothing other than ill, as it is stated in the prayer of Hezekiah when he was ill: “He will cut me off from the illness [middalla]” (Isaiah 38:12). Alternatively, it may be derived from this verse in which Jonadab asked his sick friend Amnon, son of King David: “Why, son of the king, are you so sick [dal] from morning to morning?” (II Samuel 13:4). And the term evil means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord made everything for His own purpose, and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), and the ultimate punishment of the evildoer is Gehenna. And if one visited the ill, what is his reward? The Gemara wonders at that question: What is his reward? It is as Rav said: He is spared from the judgment of Gehenna. Rather, the question is: What is his reward in this world? Rav continues: His reward is as it is written: “The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive, let him be called happy in the land; and deliver not You him unto the greed of his enemies” (Psalms 41:3). He elaborates: “The Lord will preserve him” from the evil inclination; “and keep him alive” and spare him from suffering; “let him be called happy in the land” means that everyone will be honored from their association with him; “and deliver not You him unto the greed of his enemies,” so that companions like those who counseled Naaman to seek a cure for his leprosy from Elisha (II Kings 5:3) will happen to associate with him, and companions like those who counseled Rehoboam with advice that resulted in the schism in his kingdom (I Kings 12:6–19) will not happen to associate with him. On a similar note, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If youths would say to you: Construct, and Elders would say to you: Demolish, heed the Elders and do not heed the youths, as the construction of youths is demolition, and the demolition of Elders is construction. And a mnemonic device for this matter is “Rehoboam, son of Solomon” (I Kings 12:21). Had he heeded the advice of the Elders and yielded at that time, there would have been no schism. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Let one not visit a sick person, neither during the first three hours of the day, nor in the last three hours of the day, so that he will not be diverted from praying for mercy. Rav Sheisha elaborates: During the first three hours the sick person is relieved, as after a night’s sleep his suffering is somewhat alleviated and the visitor will conclude that there is no need for prayer. In the last three hours of the day his weakness is exacerbated, and the visitor will despair of ameliorating his suffering and will conclude that prayer is futile. § Ravin said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He Himself sustains the sick person? It is as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering” (Psalms 41:4). Support in this context is understood to mean that He will feed him. And Ravin said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence is resting above the bed of the sick person? It is also as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering,” which indicates that God is actually over his bed. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit a sick person may neither sit on the bed nor sit on a bench or on a chair that is higher than the bed upon which the sick person is lying. Rather, he deferentially wraps himself in his garment and sits on the ground, because the Divine Presence is resting above the bed of the sick person, as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering,” and it is inappropriate for one to sit above the place where the Divine Presence rests.

§ Ravin said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He Himself sustains the sick person? It is as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering” (Psalms 41:4). Support in this context is understood to mean that He will feed him. And Ravin said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence is resting above the bed of the sick person? It is also as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering,” which indicates that God is actually over his bed. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: One who enters to visit a sick person may neither sit on the bed nor sit on a bench or on a chair that is higher than the bed upon which the sick person is lying. Rather, he deferentially wraps himself in his garment and sits on the ground, because the Divine Presence is resting above the bed of the sick person, as it is stated: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering,” and it is inappropriate for one to sit above the place where the Divine Presence rests.

Rabbi Ami said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you, son of man, make for yourself implements of exile” (Ezekiel 12:3)? That is referring to a lamp, and a bowl, and a rug, as an exile needs those items and they are portable. The Sages interpreted the following verse describing the exile experience: “Therefore shall you serve your enemy whom the Lord shall send against you, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things; and he shall put a yoke of iron upon your neck, until he has destroyed you” (Deuteronomy 28:48). Rabbi Ami said that Rav said: “In want of all things” means without a lamp and without a table to eat upon. Rav Ḥisda said: Without a wife. Rav Sheshet said: Without an attendant to aid him. Rav Naḥman said: Without intelligence. One of the Sages teaches in a baraita: Without salt and without fat [revav] in which to dip his bread. Abaye said that we have a tradition: A poor person is only one lacking in intelligence, in agreement with the opinion of Rav Naḥman. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: One who has this attribute, intelligence, in him has everything in him. One who does not have this attribute in him, what is in him? If he acquired this, what else is lacking? If he has not acquired this, what has he acquired? § Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: The sick person recovers from his illness only when the heavenly court forgives him for all his sins, as it is stated: “Who forgives all your iniquity; Who heals all your diseases” (Psalms 103:3). Rav Hamnuna said: When he recovers, he returns to the days of his youth, as it is stated in a verse with regard to one recovering from illness: “His flesh is tenderer than a child’s; he returns to the days of his youth” (Job 33:25). Interpreting the verse: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering; You overturned all his lying down in his illness” (Psalms 41:4), Rav Yosef said: That is to say that the sick person forgets his studies, as everything that is organized is overturned.

§ Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: The sick person recovers from his illness only when the heavenly court forgives him for all his sins, as it is stated: “Who forgives all your iniquity; Who heals all your diseases” (Psalms 103:3). Rav Hamnuna said: When he recovers, he returns to the days of his youth, as it is stated in a verse with regard to one recovering from illness: “His flesh is tenderer than a child’s; he returns to the days of his youth” (Job 33:25). Interpreting the verse: “The Lord will support him upon the bed of suffering; You overturned all his lying down in his illness” (Psalms 41:4), Rav Yosef said: That is to say that the sick person forgets his studies, as everything that is organized is overturned. The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef himself fell ill and his studies were forgotten. Abaye restored his studies by reviewing what he had learned from Rav Yosef before him. This is the background for that which we say everywhere throughout the Talmud, that Rav Yosef said: I did not learn this halakha, and Abaye said to him in response: You said this to us and it was from this baraita that you said it to us. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would learn thirteen aspects of a halakha on a certain issue, he taught Rabbi Ḥiyya seven of them. Ultimately, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fell ill and forgot all thirteen aspects. Rabbi Ḥiyya restored those seven aspects that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him by reviewing them before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. However, six were gone and forgotten, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had not taught them to anyone. There was a certain launderer who would hear Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when he was studying those halakhot. Rabbi Ḥiyya went and learned those halakhot from the launderer and he came and restored them by reviewing them before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw that launderer, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You made me and Ḥiyya, as we were able to learn these halakhot that otherwise would have been forgotten. Some say that this is what he said to the launderer: You made Ḥiyya, and Ḥiyya made me. And Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Greater is the miracle performed for the sick person than the miracle that was performed for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were rescued from the fiery furnace (see Daniel, chapter 3), as in the miracle of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, they were rescued from the fire of a layman, and anyone is capable of extinguishing it. And that fire afflicting a sick person with a fever is the fire of Heaven, and who can extinguish it? And Rabbi Alexandri said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the end of the time allotted for the life of a person arrived, everything has dominion over him, as it is stated that Cain said: “Whosoever finds me will slay me” (Genesis 4:14). Cain feared that since God sentenced him to death he would be susceptible to all threats and vulnerable to anyone seeking to murder him. Rav said that it is derived from this verse: “They stand this day according to Your judgments; for all are Your servants” (Psalms 119:91). When the decree emerges from Heaven that the time has arrived for a person to die, everyone is a servant of God, an agent to kill him. The Gemara relates that people said to Rabba bar Sheila: A man died. This person was tall and was riding on a small mule [giredona]. When he reached a bridge [tittora], the mule was frightened [istavveit] and cast off the rider, and although the rider was tall and the mule was short and the rider did not fall far, he died. Rabba bar Sheila read the verse and applied it to the rider: “They stand this day according to Your judgments.” Shmuel saw a certain frog [kerokita], and also noticed that a scorpion was sitting upon the frog and the frog crossed the river. The scorpion stung a man on the other side of the river and the man died. Shmuel read and applied the verse to the dead man: “They stand this day according to Your judgments.” Even the frog and scorpion are servants and agents of God. The only way the scorpion could reach the man and kill him was by means of the frog taking it across the river. § Shmuel said: One visits a sick person only if that person is one whom fever overcame. The Gemara asks: What illnesses does this statement come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It comes to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Perata says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One visits neither those with intestinal illness, nor those with eye illness, nor those suffering from headaches. The Gemara asks: Granted, one does not visit those with intestinal sickness, due to the sick person’s embarrassment, as he would need to frequently relieve himself and it would be awkward for him in the presence of the visitor. However, what is the reason that one does not visit those with eye illnesses and headaches?

§ Shmuel said: One visits a sick person only if that person is one whom fever overcame. The Gemara asks: What illnesses does this statement come to exclude? The Gemara answers: It comes to exclude that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Perata says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One visits neither those with intestinal illness, nor those with eye illness, nor those suffering from headaches. The Gemara asks: Granted, one does not visit those with intestinal sickness, due to the sick person’s embarrassment, as he would need to frequently relieve himself and it would be awkward for him in the presence of the visitor. However, what is the reason that one does not visit those with eye illnesses and headaches? The Gemara answers: It is due to that which Rav Yehuda said, as Rav Yehuda said: Speech is injurious for the eye and beneficial for curing a fever. Therefore, if one suffers from pain in his eye or his head it is better for him not to talk. If he has visitors, he will need to speak to them, which will cause him harm. Rava said: With regard to this fever [ishta], were it not the agent [parvanka] of the Angel of Death, i.e., the cause of serious, potentially deadly illnesses, it could be deemed beneficial, like thorns for palm trees, as the thorns prevent people and animals from touching and ruining the dates. The fever is advantageous if its incidence is once in thirty days, and it is like an antidote [tiraiki] for poison in the body. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is preferable for one to have neither fever nor the benefits of its capacity to serve as an antidote. Rabba bar Yonatan said that Rav Yeḥiel said: Arsan is beneficial for the sick person for his cure. The Gemara asks: What is arsan? Rabbi Yonatan said: It is old hulled barley from the beginning of the sifting process. Abaye said: And that barley requires extensive cooking like the meat of a bull. Rav Yosef said: Arsan is fine flour [semida] ground from old barley from the beginning of the sifting process. Abaye said: And that flour requires extensive cooking like the meat of a bull. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One does not visit a person suffering from buredam, an intestinal illness, nor is the name of that illness mentioned, because it is embarrassing for the one suffering from the illness. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one does not visit him? Rabbi Elazar said: It is due to the fact that he is like a flowing spring, as the symptom of the illness is severe diarrhea. And Rabbi Elazar said: Why is the illness called buredam? It is due to the fact that the one suffering from the illness is like a flowing spring, a bottomless pit [bor] of blood [dam].

In accordance with whose opinion do we pray every day for the sick and for the suffering? In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one is judged every day, not only on Rosh HaShana, and therefore it is appropriate to pray for people every day. From the fact that he said: The sick and the suffering, one can learn from his statement that the term: The sick, is referring to actual sick people, while the term: The suffering, is referring to the Sages, who typically are physically frail. § It is stated in the mishna that one who vowed that loose cooked food is forbidden to him is permitted to taste a thick cooked food. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the custom of the Babylonians, as Rabbi Zeira said: Babylonians are foolish, as they eat bread with bread. They eat thick porridge with their bread, which is essentially eating one kind of bread with another. According to their custom, one who vows that cooked foods are forbidden to him is prohibited from eating even a thick cooked food. In that context, Rav Ḥisda said that those fastidious residents of Huzal, Babylonia were asked: How is it best to eat this porridge? Should wheat porridge be eaten with wheat bread and barley porridge with barley bread, or perhaps wheat porridge should be eaten with barley bread and barley porridge with wheat bread? The Gemara relates: Rava would eat his bread with ḥasisei, a porridge made of toasted barley grains. Rabba, son of Rav Huna, found Rav Huna eating porridge with his fingers. He said to him: Why is the Master eating with his hands? Rav Huna said to him: This is what Rav said: Porridge eaten with a finger is tasty, and all the more so if it is eaten with two fingers, and all the more so with three. It is more enjoyable to eat porridge with your hands. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya, and Rav Huna similarly said to his son Rabba: If you are invited to eat porridge, for such a meal you should travel up to the distance of a parasang [parsa]. If you are invited to eat ox meat, you should travel up to three parasangs. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya, and Rav Huna similarly said to his son Rabba: You should not spit out anything before your teacher, as this is disrespectful, apart from gourd and porridge, as they are like a burning lead wick in the intestines when they cannot be digested, and therefore spit them out even before King Shapur, due to the danger involved. The Gemara relates more incidents: Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda dined together. One of them ate porridge with his fingers, and the other one ate with a fork [hutza]. The one who was eating with a fork said to the one who was eating with his fingers: For how long will you keep feeding me your filth? Must I keep eating off of your dirty fingernails? The one who was eating with his fingers said to the one who was eating with a fork: For how long will you keep feeding me your spittle, as you eat with a fork which you then put back in the common bowl. Belospayin, a type of figs, were brought before Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda ate them, but Rabbi Shimon did not eat them. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: What is the reason that the Master is not eating? Rabbi Shimon said to him: These do not leave the intestines at all. They remain undigested. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: If so, all the more that one can rely on them to feel full tomorrow. Rabbi Yehuda was sitting before Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Your face today is ruddy, i.e., a rosy, healthy color. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Last night your servants, i.e., we students, went out to the field, and beets were brought to us, and we ate them without salt. This is the reason for our healthy complexion. And had we eaten them with salt, all the more so would our faces have been ruddy. The Gemara cites related incidents: A certain gentile lady [matronita] said to Rabbi Yehuda, whose face was ruddy: How can one teach the Jews and be a drunk at the same time? He said to her: I place my integrity in the hands of this woman and should no longer be deemed credible if I ever taste any wine except for that of kiddush, havdala, and the four cups of Passover. And after I drink those four cups I tie my temples from Passover to Shavuot, as wine gives me a headache. Rather, my complexion is explained by the verse “A man’s wisdom makes his face to shine” (Ecclesiastes 8:1). A certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda: Your face is similar either to usurers or to pig breeders. These people would earn a good living without expending much energy, which gave them plump, healthy complexions. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Both of these occupations are prohibited to Jews. Rather, my face is ruddy because I have twenty-four bathrooms on the way from my home to the study hall, and all the time I enter each and every one of them. He did not suffer from constipation, which had a beneficial effect on his complexion. § The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Yehuda would go to the study hall he would carry a pitcher [gulefa] on his shoulder to sit on, saying: Labor is great, as it brings honor to the laborer who performs it. It brought him honor by enabling him to avoid sitting on the floor of the study hall. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon would carry a basket on his shoulder, saying: Labor is great, as it brings honor to the laborer who performs it. The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Yehuda’s wife went out to the market, collected wool, and made a thick [hutevei] cloak. When she would go out to the market she would cover herself with it, and when Rabbi Yehuda would go out to pray he would cover himself with the cloak and pray. And when he would cover himself with it he would recite the blessing: Blessed is He who wrapped me in a coat, as he took much pleasure in it. On one occasion Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nasi, decreed a fast. Rabbi Yehuda did not come to the house of the fast, where everyone gathered. The people said to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Rabbi Yehuda does not have a dignified garment to cover himself with, and therefore he shies away from public events. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel sent him a cloak of his own, but Rabbi Yehuda did not accept this gift. He lifted the mat [tzifeta] upon which he was sitting and said to the messenger: See what there is here. The place was miraculously filled with gold dinars. This demonstrated that Rabbi Yehuda could have had plenty of money if he had so desired. He explained: However, it is not amenable to me to derive benefit in this world. § In connection to the above incident concerning the poverty of scholars and their potential to become wealthy through remarkable circumstances, the Gemara relates an incident: Rabbi Akiva became betrothed to the daughter of bar Kalba Savua. When bar Kalba Savua heard about their betrothal, he took a vow prohibiting her from eating all of his property. Despite this, she went ahead and married Rabbi Akiva. In the winter they would sleep in a storehouse of straw, and Rabbi Akiva would gather strands of straw from her hair. He said to her: If I had the means I would place on your head a Jerusalem of Gold, a type of crown. Elijah the prophet came and appeared to them as a regular person and started calling and knocking on the door. He said to them: Give me a bit of straw, as my wife gave birth and I do not have anything on which to lay her. Rabbi Akiva said to his wife: See this man, who does not even have straw. We should be happy with our lot, as we at least have straw to sleep on. She said to him: Go and be a student of Torah. He went and studied Torah for twelve years before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. At the completion of the twelve years, he was coming home when he heard from behind his house that one wicked person was saying to his wife: Your father behaved well toward you. He was right to disinherit you. One reason is that your husband is not similar to you, i.e., he is not suitable for you. And furthermore, he has left you in widowhood in his lifetime all these years. She said to him: If he listens to me, he should be there for another twelve years. Rabbi Akiva said: Since she has given me permission through this statement, I will go back and study more. He turned back and went to the study hall, and he was there for another twelve years. Eventually he came back accompanied by 24,000 pairs of students. Everyone went out to greet him, as he was by then a renowned teacher, and she too arose to go out to greet him. That wicked person said to her: And to where are you going? As she was excessively poor, she was not dressed in a grand manner, as fit for the wife of one so esteemed. She said to him: “A righteous man regards the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10); he knows that I am in this state as a result of my dedication to him. She came to present herself before Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages tried to fend her off, as they were unaware of her identity. He said to them: Leave her. Both my Torah knowledge and yours are hers. When bar Kalba Savua heard that the famous man was his son-in-law, he came before halakhic authorities and requested the dissolution of his vow, and it was dissolved. The Gemara adds: Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from six things. First, from the money he received from Kalba Savua after his vow was dissolved. Second, he gained money from the ram of a ship [eila disfineta], as craftsmen would fashion a sculpture of a type of sheep for every ship, which would be placed on its bow, and which would be used to conceal money. On one occasion, the sailors forgot this ram on the seashore, and Rabbi Akiva came and found it with the money stored inside. And third, he became wealthy from a log [gavza] of wood, as on one occasion he gave four dinars to sailors and said to them: Bring me something worthwhile. And they found only a log of wood on the seashore. They brought it to him and said to him: May our master wait with this until we bring a more worthy item. He found that the log was full of dinars, as on one occasion a ship sunk and all the merchandise, i.e., the money, owned by the people on the ship was placed in that log, and it was found on that occasion by the sailors. Rabbi Akiva became wealthy from a convoy of Ishmaelites [Serukita]. And he became wealthy from a certain lady. Rabbi Akiva borrowed money from a lady and said that God would be his guarantor. When it came time to return the loan, the king’s daughter became insane and threw a purse of jewelry into the sea, which was found by that lady. She told Rabbi Akiva that his guarantor had paid his debt and she allowed him to keep the loan. And Rabbi Akiva also grew wealthy from the wife of Turnus Rufus, who converted and gave him her money, and from Ketia bar Shalom, a Roman minister who bequeathed his fortune to him. § The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Gamda gave four dinars to sailors to bring him something from overseas in exchange for them. However, they did not find anything of worth, so they bought him a monkey with the coins and brought it to him. The monkey escaped and entered a hole. When they dug after it to retrieve it, they found it crouching over pearls, and they brought all of the pearls to Rav Gamda. The daughter of the emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: You are the epitome of magnificent Torah, but it is stored in an ugly vessel, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya was an unattractive man. He said to her: You may learn the answer to your statement from your father’s house. In what container do you place wine? She said to him: In earthenware vessels. He said to her: Is it conceivable that everyone stores their wine in earthenware vessels, and you also store it in earthenware vessels? Is there no distinction between the emperor and ordinary people? You should place your wine in vessels of silver and gold. She went and placed the wine in vessels of silver and gold, and it spoiled. Rabbi Yehoshua said to her: The same is also true of the Torah. It spoils if it is contained in a handsome person. She asked him: But are there not people who are both good looking and learned in Torah? He said to her: If they were ugly they would be even more learned. A certain woman came before Rav Yehuda of the city of Neharde’a for judgment, and she was found guilty in the judgment of her case. She said to him: Would Shmuel your teacher have judged me in this manner? He said to her: Did you know him? She said to him: Yes. He was short and potbellied. He was dark and his teeth were large. He said to her: Did you come here to disparage him by describing him in this manner? Let that woman be in a state of excommunication. After he excommunicated her, her belly split open and she died, as a punishment for having disparaged a Torah scholar.

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi made a wedding for Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Someone wrote on the canopy: 24,000 myriad dinars were expended on this canopy, and nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not invite bar Kappara to the wedding. The insulted bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If to those who transgress God’s will, i.e., you who act improperly, their reward is such, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was very wealthy, all the more so those who perform His will are to be rewarded. Upon hearing his reaction, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invited him. Bar Kappara then said: If to those who perform His will their reward is such in this world, all the more so will they be rewarded in the World-to-Come. The Gemara relates additional incidents that occurred between the two scholars. On a day when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would laugh, calamity would befall the world, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s sufferings would atone for the sins of the Jewish people. He therefore said to bar Kappara: Do not cause me to laugh, and I will give you forty se’a of wheat in return. Bar Kappara said to him: The Master will see that any se’a I wish I will take. He took a large palm basket, smeared it with tar, and overturned it upon his head, and went, and said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Let the Master measure for me the forty se’a of wheat that I am owed by you. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi laughed at this and said to him: Did I not warn you not to make me laugh? He said to him: What I am taking from you is simply the wheat that I am owed by you. The Gemara relates another story. Bar Kappara said to the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whose husband’s name was ben Elasa: Tomorrow I will drink wine at your father’s dancing and your mother’s singing [kirekanei]. Ben Elasa was the son-in-law of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and was a very wealthy man. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invited him to the wedding of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi at the wedding: What is the meaning of the word to’eva, abomination, used by the Torah to describe homosexual intercourse (see Leviticus 18:22)? Whatever it was that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara in explanation, claiming that this is the meaning of to’eva, bar Kappara refuted it by proving otherwise. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You explain it. Bar Kappara said to him: Let your wife come and pour me a goblet of wine. She came and poured him wine. Bar Kappara then said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Arise and dance for me, so that I will tell you the meaning of the word: This is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah in the word to’eva: You are straying after it [to’e ata bah], i.e., after an atypical mate. When they came to drink another cup, bar Kappara said to him: What is the meaning of the word tevel, perversion, as in the verse: “Neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto; it is perversion [tevel]” (Leviticus 18:23)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said various explanations to him, as he did the previous time, which were all refuted again by bar Kappara. Bar Kappara then said to him: Perform for me as you did before, so that I will tell you. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so. Bar Kappara then said to him that the phrase: “It is tevel” means: Does it have any spice [tevalin yesh bah]? Is this act of sexual intercourse with an animal different than all other acts of sexual intercourse, which would cause one to engage in such a repulsive action? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: And what is the meaning of the word zimma, lewdness, as in the verse: “They are near kinswomen; it is lewdness [zimma]” (Leviticus 18:17), stated with regard to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter? He said to him: Perform for me as you did the previous time. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, and bar Kappara said to him that zimma means: What is she [zo ma hi]? This man would be confused about how to refer to his wives; his wife is also his other wife’s mother or daughter. Ben Elasa could not tolerate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s humiliation, so he and his wife arose and left the wedding. In what other context is ben Elasa mentioned? He is mentioned in a baraita, as it is taught: Ben Elasa did not dispense his money on his special haircut for naught. Rather, he spent it to show others what the haircut of a High Priest looked like. As it is written with regard to the priests: “They shall poll their heads” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is taught in a baraita: This haircut is like a luleyanit. The Gemara asks: What is a luleyanit? Rav Yehuda said: It is a unique haircut. The Gemara asks: What is this haircut like? Rava said: The edge of this hank of hair is by the roots of that hank of hair. The hair is cut in the form of hanks that do not overlap. And this is the haircut of a High Priest, for which ben Elasa paid a large sum.

§ The Gemara relates: The son of Master Shmuel commanded his workers that they give thirteen thousand dinars to Rava from the crop [alalta] produced in his fields on the banks of the Panya River. Rava sent this question before Rav Yosef: What is called alalta; what crops are included in the category of alalta? Rav Yosef said: It is as it is taught in the baraita cited above: And they agree with regard to one who vows that tevua is forbidden to him that it is prohibited for him to eat from only the five species of grain; just as tevua includes only the five species, so too alalta includes only the five species. Abaye said to him: Are the two cases comparable? Although tevua means grain and includes only the five species, alalta means crop and includes all items that grow. The messengers returned with the answer to his question and came before Rava. He said: That was not a dilemma for me, i.e., the fact that alalta means all items that grow. This is the matter that is a dilemma for me: What is the legal status of profits from the rent of houses and the rent of boats? Do we say: Since they depreciate, their legal status is not comparable to that of a crop? Only items that are consistently profitable are similar to crops. House boats deteriorate with use, and their depreciation diminishes the profits. Or perhaps, since their depreciation is not conspicuous, their legal status is comparable to that of a crop. The Rabbis stated Rava’s reaction before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said: And since he does not need us, and he believes that he knows the answer himself, why did he send us the question? Rav Yosef became angry with Rava. Rava heard that Rav Yosef was angry and came before him on Yom Kippur eve to appease him. He found the attendant of Rav Yosef, who was diluting a cup of wine with water before him. Rava said to the attendant: Give me the cup so that I will dilute the wine for him. The attendant gave it to him and Rava diluted the cup of wine. While Rav Yosef, who was blind, was drinking the wine, he said: This dilution is similar to the dilution of Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, who would dilute wine with more than the standard amount of water. Rava said to him: Correct, it is he. Rav Yosef said to Rava: Do not sit on your feet until you tell me the explanation of this matter: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And from the wilderness Mattana and from Mattana Nahaliel, and from Nahaliel Bamot” (Numbers 21:18–19)? Rava said to him that it means: Once a person renders himself like a wilderness, deserted before all, the Torah is given to him as a gift [mattana], as it is stated: “And from the wilderness Mattana.” And once it is given to him as a gift, God bequeaths [naḥalo] it to him, as it is stated: “And from Mattana Nahaliel.” And once God bequeaths it to him, he rises to greatness, as it is stated: And from Nahaliel, Bamot, which are elevated places. And if he elevates himself and is arrogant about his Torah, the Holy One, Blessed be He, degrades him, as it is stated: “And from Bamot the valley” (Numbers 21:20). And not only is he degraded, but one lowers him into the ground, as it is stated: “And looking over [nishkafa] the face of the wasteland” (Numbers 21:20), like a threshold [iskopa] that is sunken into the ground. And if he reverses his arrogance and becomes humble, the Holy One, Blessed be He, elevates him, as it is stated: “Every valley shall be lifted” (Isaiah 40:4). When Rav Yosef heard that interpretation, he understood that Rava was aware of the error of his ways in acting arrogantly toward his teacher, and was pacified by Rava’s display of humility.

Ravina said: Mareimar said to me: Your father said as follows, in the name of Rav Yosef: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha taught by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built a personal altar, which is forbidden because one must bring all offerings to the Temple. And one who fulfills the vow, is as though he burns portions meant for the altar in the Temple upon it, i.e., the personal altar, thereby increasing his sin. Consequently, even after he has fulfilled the vow, it is preferable for him to ask a halakhic authority to annul it entirely, so that it will be as if he never took a vow.

The Gemara relates another incident: A certain man found Rabbi Tarfon eating figs from his field at the time when most of the knives had been set aside. He placed Rabbi Tarfon in a sack, lifted him up, and carried him to throw him into the river. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Woe to Tarfon, for this man is killing him. When that man heard that he was carrying the great Rabbi Tarfon, he left him and fled. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel: All the days of that righteous man, Rabbi Tarfon, he was distressed over this matter, saying: Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah, as Rabbi Tarfon was only released out of respect for his Torah learning. And with regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever makes use of the crown of Torah is uprooted from the world. This can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: If Belshazzar, who made use of the sacred Temple vessels, which had already become non-sacred vessels by that time, as after their forcible removal from the Temple the vessels lost their sanctity, as it is stated in the verse: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22), showing that once the Temple vessels have been robbed they become non-sacred, was uprooted from the world for his actions, as it is written: “On that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30); one who makes use of the crown of Torah, which lives and endures forever and whose sanctity cannot be removed, all the more so shall he be uprooted. The Gemara returns to the incident involving Rabbi Tarfon. And in the case of Rabbi Tarfon, since he was eating during the time when most of the knives had been set aside, why did that man trouble him? The Gemara explains: It was because someone had been stealing grapes from that man all year, and when he found Rabbi Tarfon he thought: This is the one who stole from me the entire year. The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rabbi Tarfon berate himself? Clearly he was justified in saving himself. The Gemara answers: Since Rabbi Tarfon was very wealthy, he should have sought to appease him with money in order to save himself, rather than relying on his status as a Torah scholar. Apropos the story of Rabbi Tarfon’s regret for gaining personal benefit from his status as a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites similar teachings. It is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “To love the Lord your God, to listen to His voice, and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 30:20). This verse indicates that a person should not say: I will read the written Torah so that they will call me a Sage; I will study Mishna so that they will call me Rabbi; I will review my studies so that I will be an Elder and will sit in the academy. Rather, learn out of love, as the verse states: “To love the Lord your God.” And the honor will eventually come of its own accord, as it is stated: “Bind them upon your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3), and it states: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17), and it states: “It is a tree of life to those who grasp it; happy is everyone who holds it fast” (Proverbs 3:17). Consequently, one who studies in order to master Torah for its own sake, as reflected in the verse “bind them upon your fingers,” will eventually merit pleasantness, peace, and happiness. Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: Do things for the sake of their performance, not for any ulterior motive, and speak words of Torah for their own sake. Do not make them a crown with which to become glorified, nor make them a dolabra [kordom] with which to hoe, i.e., do not use Torah study as a means of earning a livelihood. And this is an a fortiori inference: If Belshazzar, who made use only of sacred vessels that had become non-sacred vessels, was uprooted from the world, one who makes use of the crown of Torah, whose sanctity is permanent, all the more so shall he be uprooted from the world. Rava said: In a time of need, it is permitted for a person to make himself known in a place where people do not know him. The proof is from what Obadiah said to Elijah in order to identify himself, as it is written: “But I, your servant, have feared the Lord from my youth” (I Kings 18:12). The Gemara asks: But this is difficult with regard to the story about Rabbi Tarfon, who was distraught because he revealed his identity to the man who placed him in the sack. The Gemara answers: The case of Rabbi Tarfon is different, as he was very wealthy, and therefore he should have sought to appease him with money. Rava raises a contradiction: It is written that Obadiah spoke highly of himself: “But I, your servant, have feared the Lord from my youth.” And it is written: “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth” (Proverbs 27:2). He answers: This verse is referring to a place where people know him, where he should not praise himself, whereas that verse is referring to a place where people do not know him. Rava said further: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I am a Torah scholar, so resolve my case first, as it is written: “And the sons of David were priests” (II Samuel 8:18). The sons of David could not have been actual priests, as David was not a priest. Rather, the verse indicates that just as a priest takes his portion first, so too, a Torah scholar takes his portion first. And a priest, from where do we derive that he takes his portion first? As it is written: “And you shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God” (Leviticus 21:8). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The phrase “and you shall sanctify him” applies with regard to every matter of sanctity: To open the Torah reading first, to recite a blessing first, and to take a fine portion first. When portions are distributed equally, a priest can choose his share first. The verse with regard to the sons of David proves that the same halakha applies to Torah scholars. Furthermore, Rava said: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I will not pay the head tax [karga], as it is written that the king of Persia wrote to Ezra, with regard to the priests, the Levites, and others who worked in the Temple: “It shall not be lawful to impose minda, belo, and halakh upon them” (Ezra 7:24). And Rabbi Yehuda said: Minda; this is the king’s portion. Belo; this is the money of the head tax. And halakh; this is arnona, a levy on people and their animals to perform physical labor in the service of the ruling authority. Since a Torah scholar is considered equivalent to a priest, as he is also dedicated to a sacred task, this exemption applies to him as well. And Rava said further: It is permitted for a Torah scholar to say: I am a servant of the priests of fire worship and therefore I will not pay the head tax. Rava maintains that a scholar may issue a statement of this kind in a place where the priests of fire-worshippers are exempt from the head tax, because he actually is declaring himself a servant of God, who is referred to as “a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24). What is the reason that he is allowed to make this statement? He is saying it merely in order to chase a lion away from him, i.e., to avoid suffering a loss. The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi had a particular forest, and he sold it for its wood to the temple of fire worship. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Isn’t there the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), which prohibits assisting others in committing transgressions? And yet you are providing assistance to an idolatrous cult. He said to him: Most of the wood they use is for kindling, not for their ritual service. Consequently, I need not be concerned that the particular wood that I have sold them will be used for idolatry. MISHNA: If one takes a vow until the harvest, the vow remains in effect until people begin to harvest. This is referring to the wheat harvest but not the barley harvest. As for the exact date of this event, all is determined according to the place where he took his vow. If he was on a mountain, it is assumed that he referred to the time of the harvest on the mountain, and if he was in a valley, it is assumed that he meant the time of the harvest in the valley.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Any person who does not have children is considered like a dead person. The source is as is stated in the words Rachel said to Jacob: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1). And it was taught in a baraita: Four are considered as if they were dead: A pauper, and a leper, and a blind person, and one who has no children. A pauper, as it is written: “For all the men are dead” (Exodus 4:19). As explained above, they were not actually dead but had descended into poverty, and yet they were considered dead. A leper, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not, I pray, be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12). And a blind person, as it is written: “He has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6). And one who has no children, as it is written: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1).

The Gemara cites another proof that one may dissolve such a vow or oath only in the presence of the party affected by the vow or oath. It states with regard to King Zedekiah: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God” (II Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him. Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath. He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence? Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: “They sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zion” (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha. MISHNA: As a continuation of the opinion of the Rabbis in the previous mishna that they may not broach dissolution of a vow based on a new situation, Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are, at first glance, like a new situation but are not in fact like a new situation, and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How so? For example, one said: Marrying so-and-so is konam for me, as her father is evil, and they told him that her father died, or that he repented. Or he said: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog inside it, or a snake inside it, and they told him that the dog died, or that the snake was killed. This is at first glance perceived like a new situation, and yet it is not in fact like a new situation, and this claim may be used to broach dissolution. But the Rabbis do not concede to him.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have given Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon your cooked food to taste, so they can see for themselves what a bad cook you are. She brought the food to them, and Rabbi Yehuda tasted it, without concern for his honor. He said: This is an a fortiori inference: And what can be seen, that in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My name, that is written in sanctity, shall be blotted out in the waters that curse, as the words written on a scroll, including the name of God, were blotted out during the ceremony of preparing the water that a sota would drink. And this is so even in a case of where it is uncertain if this will bring peace between them, as she may or not be guilty of adultery. I, all the more so, should waive my honor in order to bring peace to this couple. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon did not taste. He said: Let all the children of the widow die, and Shimon will not budge from his place. In other words, the husband can die and leave his wife a widow and his children orphans, and let them die too, rather than have people belittle the dignity of Torah scholars by taking such vows. And furthermore, there is another reason for my refusal: So that they should not become used to taking vows. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have spat on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. She came to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and spat on his clothing. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But this man intended the humiliation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is not achieved by spitting on his clothing. Ravina said to him: Spittle on the clothing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is a great humiliation for him, and she has thereby fulfilled the vow. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [yafeh] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman. He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her feet are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name. The Gemara cites another incident: There was a certain Babylonian who went up to Eretz Yisrael and married a woman there. He said to her: Cook two lentils, i.e., some lentils, for me. She cooked exactly two lentils for him. He grew angry with her. On the following day, so that she would not repeat what she had done, he said to her: Cook a se’a [geriva] for me, intending: A large amount. She cooked an actual se’a for him, far more than what one person could eat. He said to her: Go and bring me two butzinei, intending small gourds, as butzinei are small gourds in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She went and brought him two lamps [sheraggei], called butzinei in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael. In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava, intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have given Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon your cooked food to taste, so they can see for themselves what a bad cook you are. She brought the food to them, and Rabbi Yehuda tasted it, without concern for his honor. He said: This is an a fortiori inference: And what can be seen, that in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My name, that is written in sanctity, shall be blotted out in the waters that curse, as the words written on a scroll, including the name of God, were blotted out during the ceremony of preparing the water that a sota would drink. And this is so even in a case of where it is uncertain if this will bring peace between them, as she may or not be guilty of adultery. I, all the more so, should waive my honor in order to bring peace to this couple. Conversely, Rabbi Shimon did not taste. He said: Let all the children of the widow die, and Shimon will not budge from his place. In other words, the husband can die and leave his wife a widow and his children orphans, and let them die too, rather than have people belittle the dignity of Torah scholars by taking such vows. And furthermore, there is another reason for my refusal: So that they should not become used to taking vows. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have spat on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. She came to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and spat on his clothing. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But this man intended the humiliation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is not achieved by spitting on his clothing. Ravina said to him: Spittle on the clothing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is a great humiliation for him, and she has thereby fulfilled the vow. The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [yafeh] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman. He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her feet are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name. The Gemara cites another incident: There was a certain Babylonian who went up to Eretz Yisrael and married a woman there. He said to her: Cook two lentils, i.e., some lentils, for me. She cooked exactly two lentils for him. He grew angry with her. On the following day, so that she would not repeat what she had done, he said to her: Cook a se’a [geriva] for me, intending: A large amount. She cooked an actual se’a for him, far more than what one person could eat. He said to her: Go and bring me two butzinei, intending small gourds, as butzinei are small gourds in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She went and brought him two lamps [sheraggei], called butzinei in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael. In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava, intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta.

§ The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a spring belonging to the residents of a city, if the water was needed for their own lives, i.e., the city’s residents required the spring for drinking water, and it was also needed for the lives of others, their own lives take precedence over the lives of others. Likewise, if the water was needed for their own animals and also for the animals of others, their own animals take precedence over the animals of others. And if the water was needed for their own laundry and also for the laundry of others, their own laundry takes precedence over the laundry of others. However, if the spring water was needed for the lives of others and their own laundry, the lives of others take precedence over their own laundry. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, as the wearing of unlaundered clothes can eventually cause suffering and pose a danger. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty presented by this baraita: Now, if with regard to laundry, Rabbi Yosei said that refraining from laundering one’s clothes involves pain and affliction, is it not all the more so the case that if one does not bathe, which affects the entire body, Rabbi Yosei would agree that he will suffer pain? The Gemara refutes this argument: The Sages say in response: Yes, the pain of refraining from laundering one’s clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one’s body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one’s head leads to blindness, and grime on one’s clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one’s body leads to boils and sores, which are less serious than madness and blindness. Based on this it may be suggested that according to Rabbi Yosei, soiled clothing presents a greater danger than an unwashed body. § With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.

§ With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth. With regard to a similar matter, the Gemara inquires: And for what reason is it not common for Torah scholars to give rise to Torah scholars from among their sons? Why are Torah scholars generally born to paupers, who are not Torah scholars themselves? Rav Yosef said: This is so that they should not say the Torah is their inheritance. Therefore, it is unusual to find that all the sons of a Torah scholar are also Torah scholars. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: This is so that they should not be presumptuous [yitgadderu] toward the community, with the knowledge that they will be Torah scholars like their fathers. Mar Zutra said: Because they take advantage of their fathers’ standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys. Ravina says: They are punished because they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah before commencing their studies. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land is perished and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through” (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e., “the wise man,” and of the prophets, “he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,” but they could not explain it. The matter remained a mystery until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained why Eretz Yisrael was laid waste, as it is written in the next verse: “And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein” (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that “have not obeyed My voice” is the same as “nor walked therein.” Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression “nor walked therein” means that they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah, and they are therefore liable to receive the severe punishments listed in the verse.

§ It is related that there was a certain man who took a vow that all benefit from the world should be forbidden to him if he marries a woman when he has not yet learned halakha. He would run up a ladder and rope but was not able to learn the material, i.e., despite all his efforts he failed in his studies. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna came and misled him, allowing him to understand that even if he took a vow, the vow would not take effect, and so he married a woman. And Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna then smeared him with clay to protect him from the elements, as it was now prohibited for him to benefit from the world by wearing clothes. And he then brought him before Rav Ḥisda, to dissolve his vow. Rava said: Who is wise enough to act in this manner, if not Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, who is a great man? As he holds that just as the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree with regard to nullification, whether it is possible to nullify a vow that has yet to take effect, so too, they disagree with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, whether it is possible to request dissolution of such a vow. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna’s plan was to have the vow go into effect, so that the man could request that it be dissolved. And Rav Pappi said with regard to this issue: The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis is with regard to nullification only, as Rabbi Natan holds that a husband can nullify a vow only once the vow has taken effect, as it is written: “And the moon shall be confounded [ḥafera]” (Isaiah 24:23). He employs this phrase as an allusion, interpreting the word ḥafera as if it were hafara, nullification, and concludes from here that only a vow that already exists, like the moon, can be nullified. And the Rabbis hold that a husband can nullify a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect, as it is written: “He nullifies the thoughts of the crafty” (Job 5:12), implying that nullification pertains even to thoughts, to prevent them from going into effect. But with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, everyone, both Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, agrees that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve anything unless the vow has already taken effect, as it is written: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that the person himself who took the vow cannot profane his words and dissolve his vow, but a halakhic authority may do so. This, however, applies only if the vow has already gone into effect, as it says: “His word.”

§ It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husband’s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband. It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [naftoyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naḥman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable. The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open. The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taḥlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the woman’s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it. The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: “For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:45), indicating that adultery leads to murder. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Rava’s ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other man’s wife, and the reason that he said to the husband that he should not eat and saved his life is because it is preferable for him that the husband should not die. This is in order that his wife should be to him as it says in the verse: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). That is to say, a person derives greater pleasure from forbidden fruit. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not a concern. Rather, the assumption is that he had not yet actually sinned and therefore acted in the proper manner.