אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: כִּי הֲוָה פָּתַח רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּסוֹטָה, אָמַר הָכִי: אֵין מְזַוְּוגִין לוֹ לְאָדָם אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא לְפִי מַעֲשָׂיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא יָנוּחַ שֵׁבֶט הָרֶשַׁע עַל גּוֹרַל הַצַּדִּיקִים״. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְקָשִׁין לְזַוְּוגָן כִּקְרִיעַת יַם סוּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים מוֹשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת״.
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: When Reish Lakish would introduce his discussion of the Torah passage of sota he would say this: Heaven matches a woman to a man only according to his actions, as it is stated: “For the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous” (Psalms 125:3), indicating that if one has a wicked wife it is due to his own evil conduct. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And it is as difficult to match a couple together as was the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated in a verse that speaks of the exodus from Egypt: “God makes the solitary individuals dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity [bakosharot]” (Psalms 68:7). God takes single individuals and causes them to dwell in a house by properly matching a man to a woman. This is similar to the exodus from Egypt, which culminated in the splitting of the Red Sea, where He released prisoners into prosperity.
אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם קוֹדֶם יְצִירַת הַוָּלָד בַּת קוֹל יוֹצֵאת וְאוֹמֶרֶת: בַּת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי, בֵּית פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי, שְׂדֵה פְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן, הָא — בְּזוּג שֵׁנִי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so that a man is matched to a woman according to his actions? But Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Forty days before an embryo is formed a Divine Voice issues forth and says: The daughter of so-and-so is destined to marry so-and-so; such and such a house is destined to be inhabited by so-and-so; such and such a field is destined to be farmed by so-and-so. This clearly states that these matters, including marriage, are decreed for a person even before he is formed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav is with regard to a first match [zivug], while this statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan is with regard to a second match. A first match is decreed in heaven; a second match is according to one’s actions.
וּמַאי ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — לְבַסּוֹף נִכְשָׁל בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה תָצוּד״. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי ״נֶפֶשׁ יְקָרָה״ — ״נֶפֶשׁ גְּבוֹהָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְעוֹד: ״הִיא תָּצוּד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ לָמַד תּוֹרָה דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים״, מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְנָס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, ״הִיא תְּצוּדֶנּוּ״ — לְדִינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְלָא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ כָּפַר בָּעִיקָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרָם לְבָבֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״. רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ בָּא עַל כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״כִּי אֶת כׇּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. עוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חִדְלוּ לָכֶם מִן הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ כִּי בַּמֶּה נֶחְשָׁב הוּא״ — אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״בַּמֶּה״, אֶלָּא ״בָּמָה״. מַאי ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה״? אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְנָהוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״הֲרִימֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה׳ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. קַשְׁיָא לְהוּ לִדְבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: הַאי ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה״, ״יָדִי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: אֲפִילּוּ קִיבֵּל תּוֹרָה כְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״מִימִינוֹ אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי ״יָד לְיָד״, ״יָד מִיָּד״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹשֶׂה צְדָקָה בַּסֵּתֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַתָּן בַּסֵּתֶר יִכְפֶּה אָף וְגוֹ׳״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
§ The Gemara now continues the interpretation of the above quoted verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). The Gemara asks: And what is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any person who has arrogance within him will eventually stumble by sinning with an adulteress, as it is stated: “But the adulteress hunts for the precious life,” i.e., she sins with one who considers himself precious. Rava said: This phrase: “The precious life,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: An arrogant life. And further, it should have stated: A precious life, she hunts for the adulteress, indicating that the precious soul will entrap the adulteress, and not vice versa, as the verse indicates as written. Rather, Rava says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if that man studied Torah, about which it is written: “She is more precious than rubies [peninim]” (Proverbs 3:15), which, based on its etymological connection with the Hebrew term for the Holy of Holies, lifnai velifnim, is interpreted by the Sages to mean that one who studies Torah is more precious than a High Priest, who enters the innermost sanctum, still, this transgression of adultery will entrap him into the judgment of Gehenna, and the Torah he studied will not be able to save him. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he were an idol worshipper, as it is written here: “Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), and it is written there concerning the destruction of idols: “And you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said his own statement: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he has denied the core belief in God’s existence, as it is stated: “Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:14). Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he engaged in sexual intercourse with all of those with whom relations are forbidden, as it is written here: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), and it is written there, at the end of the passage concerning forbidden sexual relationships: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done” (Leviticus 18:27). Ulla says: Any person who has arrogance within him is considered as if he built a personal altar for idol worship, as it is stated: “Cease you from man, in whose nostrils there is breath, for how little [bammeh] is he to be accounted” (Isaiah 2:22), referring to an arrogant person. Do not read the verse as it is written, bammeh, how little. Rather, read it as bama, altar. Having interpreted the phrase: “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5), the Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse. What is the meaning of: “Hand to hand, he shall not be unpunished” (Proverbs 16:5)? Rav says: Anyone who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress, even if he were to have attributed possession of heaven and earth to the Holy One, Blessed be He, just as Abraham our forefather did, that it is written with regard to him: “I have lifted up my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:22), he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. Abraham is described as one whose hands were lifted to declare the glory of God, yet this verse declares that even if one who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse were to use his hands in the same way, still, due to his sin, the verse says: “He shall not be unpunished.” This interpretation poses a difficulty to the Sages of the school of Rabbi Sheila: This phrase: “Hand to hand, he shall not be unpunished,” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: My hand, as that is the term employed in the verse with regard to Abraham. Rather, the Sages of the school of Rabbi Sheila say: This teaches that even if one who engages in sexual intercourse with an adulteress had received the Torah from the hand of God like Moses our teacher did, that it is written with regard to him: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), i.e., God gave the Torah from His right hand into the hand of Moses in order to give to the Jewish people, the sinner will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. This interpretation also poses a difficulty to Rabbi Yoḥanan: This phrase “hand to hand” is not how the verse would present this idea. It should have stated: Hand from hand, as that is the term employed in the verse with regard to Moses. Rather Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if the one who committed adultery performs charitable deeds secretly, as alluded to in the phrase “hand to hand,” and even if one might think that one who does so will go unpunished, as it is written with regard to charity of this kind: “A gift in secret pacifies wrath” (Proverbs 21:14), nevertheless, he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna.
אַזְהָרָה לְגַסֵּי הָרוּחַ מִנַּיִן? אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר זְעֵירִי: ״שִׁמְעוּ וְהַאֲזִינוּ אַל תִּגְבָּהוּ״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְרָם לְבָבֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ״ וּכְתִיב: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְכִדְרַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הִשָּׁמֶר״ ״פֶּן״ וְ״אַל״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, זִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי וְזִמְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ לְסוֹף מִתְמַעֵט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רוֹמּוּ מְּעַט״. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר יֶשְׁנוֹ בָּעוֹלָם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֵינֶנּוּ״. וְאִם חוֹזֵר בּוֹ — נֶאֱסָף בִּזְמַנּוֹ כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֻמְּכוּ כַּכֹּל יִקָּפְצוּן״. כְּאַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״בַּכֹּל״, ״מִכֹּל״, ״כֹּל״. וְאִם לָאו — ״וּכְרֹאשׁ שִׁבֹּלֶת יִמָּלוּ״. מַאי ״וּכְרֹאשׁ שִׁבֹּלֶת״? רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא, חַד אָמַר: כִּי סָאסָא דְשִׁיבַּלְתָּא, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּשִׁיבּוֹלֶת עַצְמָהּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּי סָאסָא דְשִׁיבַּלְתָּא — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְרֹאשׁ שִׁבֹּלֶת״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּי שׁוּבַּלְתָּא עַצְמָהּ, מַאי ״וּכְרֹאשׁ שִׁבֹּלֶת״? אָמַר רַב אַסִּי, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּכְנָס לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ — גְּבוֹהָה גְּבוֹהָה הוּא מְלַקֵּט. ״וְאֶת דַּכָּא וּשְׁפַל רוּחַ״. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא, חַד אָמַר: אִתִּי דַּכָּא, וְחַד אָמַר: אֲנִי אֶת דַּכָּא. וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲנִי אֶת דַּכָּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הִנִּיחַ כׇּל הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת, וְהִשְׁרָה שְׁכִינָתוֹ עַל הַר סִינַי וְלֹא גָּבַהּ הַר סִינַי לְמַעְלָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לְעוֹלָם יִלְמַד אָדָם מִדַּעַת קוֹנוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הִנִּיחַ כׇּל הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת, וְהִשְׁרָה שְׁכִינָתוֹ עַל הַר סִינַי. וְהִנִּיחַ כׇּל אִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת, וְהִשְׁרָה שְׁכִינָתוֹ בַּסְּנֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ רָאוּי לְגַדְּעוֹ כַּאֲשֵׁירָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְרָמֵי הַקּוֹמָה גְּדוּעִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַאֲשֵׁירֵיהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ — אֵין עֲפָרוֹ נִנְעָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָקִיצוּ וְרַנְּנוּ שֹׁכְנֵי עָפָר״, ״שֹׁכְבֵי בֶּעָפָר״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״שֹׁכְנֵי עָפָר״ — מִי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שָׁכֵן לֶעָפָר בְּחַיָּיו. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, שְׁכִינָה מְיַלֶּלֶת עָלָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְגָבֹהַּ מִמֶּרְחָק יְיֵדָע״. דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וְדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם — גָּבוֹהַּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַגָּבוֹהַּ, וְאֵין גָּבוֹהַּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַשָּׁפֵל. אֲבָל מִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, הוּא גָּבוֹהַּ וְרוֹאֶה אֶת הַשָּׁפֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי רָם ה׳ וְשָׁפָל יִרְאֶה״. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא מָר עוּקְבָא: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אֵין אֲנִי וָהוּא יְכוֹלִין לָדוּר בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְלׇשְׁנִי בַסֵּתֶר רֵעֵהוּ אוֹתוֹ אַצְמִית גְּבַהּ עֵינַיִם וּרְחַב לֵבָב אֹתוֹ לֹא אוּכָל״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״אֹתוֹ״, אֶלָּא ״אִתּוֹ לֹא אוּכָל״. אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמְּסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְלׇשְׁנִי בַסֵּתֶר רֵעֵהוּ אוֹתוֹ אַצְמִית״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ, אֲפִילּוּ רוּחַ קִימְעָא עוֹכַרְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָרְשָׁעִים כַּיָּם נִגְרָשׁ״, וּמָה יָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כַּמָּה רְבִיעִיּוֹת — רוּחַ קִימְעָא עוֹכַרְתּוֹ, אָדָם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית אַחַת — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: תַּלְמִיד חָכָם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁמוֹנָה בִּשְׁמִינִית. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וּמְעַטְּרָא לֵיהּ כִּי סָאסָא לְשׁוּבַּלְתָּא. אָמַר רָבָא: בְּשַׁמְתָּא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ, וּבְשַׁמְתָּא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לָא מִינַּהּ וְלָא מִקְצָתַהּ, מִי זוּטַר דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ כׇּל גְּבַהּ לֵב״? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: אֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נִשְׁמַעַת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מֵשִׂים לִבּוֹ כְּבָשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה מִדֵּי חֹדֶשׁ בְּחׇדְשׁוֹ [וְגוֹ׳] יָבֹא כׇּל בָּשָׂר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״בָּשָׂר״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנִרְפָּא״, ״אָדָם״ לָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״וְנִרְפָּא״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָדָם: אֵפֶר, דָּם, מָרָה. בָּשָׂר: בּוּשָׁה, סְרוּחָה, רִמָּה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁאוֹל, דִּכְתִיב בְּשִׁין. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ גַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ לְסוֹף נִפְחָת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלַשְׂאֵת וְלַסַּפַּחַת״, וְאֵין ״שְׂאֵת״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַל [כׇּל ] הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל [כׇּל] הַגְּבָעוֹת דהַנִּשָּׂאוֹת״, וְאֵין ״סַפַּחַת״ אֶלָּא טְפֵילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״סְפָחֵנִי נָא אֶל אַחַת הַכְּהֻנּוֹת לֶאֱכֹל פַּת לָחֶם״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלִים נְמוּכֵי הָרוּחַ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים אָדָם מַקְרִיב עוֹלָה — שְׂכַר עוֹלָה בְּיָדוֹ. מִנְחָה — שְׂכַר מִנְחָה בְּיָדוֹ. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ שְׁפָלָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב כׇּל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כּוּלָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זִבְחֵי אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ נִשְׁבָּרָה״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִמְאֶסֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֵב נִשְׁבָּר וְנִדְכֶּה אֱלֹהִים לֹא תִבְזֶה״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַשָּׁם אוֹרְחוֹתָיו בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״וְשָׂם״, אֶלָּא ״וְשָׁם דֶּרֶךְ״. [כֵּיצַד מְקַנֵּא לָהּ כּוּ׳.] הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ, אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אַל תְּדַבְּרִי עִם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי זֶה, אַלְמָא דִּבּוּר סְתִירָה הוּא,
§ The Gemara previously discussed the impropriety of the trait of arrogance. Now the Gemara discusses the source of its prohibition. From where is the warning derived, i.e., what is the source prohibiting the behavior of the arrogant? Rava says that Ze’eiri says: The source is from the verse: “Hear, you, and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord has spoken” (Jeremiah 13:15). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said the warning is from here: “Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:14), and it is also written in that same passage: “Beware lest you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:11). The Gemara explains: And these sources are in accordance with a statement that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated in a verse “beware,” “lest,” or “not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition. Since these verses employ these terms in the context of one who is arrogant, they serve as sources for the prohibition. Rav Avira interpreted the following verse homiletically: “They are exalted for a little while, and they are gone; yes, they are brought low, they are gathered in as all others, and wither as the tops of the husks” (Job 24:24). There were times when he said this interpretation in the name of Rav Asi and there were times when he said it in the name of Rav Ami: Any person who has arrogance within him will ultimately be diminished in standing, as it is stated in the phrase: “They are exalted for a little while,” indicating that one who raises himself above others will be exalted only briefly. And lest you say that even if he is diminished he will still exist in this world and live a full life, the verse states: “And they are gone,” indicating that they die before their time. He continues the interpretation: But if he repents from his arrogance, he is gathered in death at his proper time like Abraham our forefather, as it is stated: “Yes, they are brought low, they are gathered in as all [kakkol] others” (Job 24:24), indicating that when he repents from his arrogance he will die like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written about them that they were blessed with the term “all,” as in the verse above. With regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1). With regard to Isaac, the verse states: “And I have eaten of all [mikkol]” (Genesis 27:33). With regard to Jacob, the verse states: “And because I have all [khol]” (Genesis 33:11). And if one does not repent, then, the verse in Job continues: “And wither like the tops of the husk.” The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “and wither like the tops of the husks”? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda offered differing interpretations. One says that it means: Like the awn of bristle-like growth on the top of the husk, and one says that it means: Like the husk itself. The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says: Like the awn of bristle-like growth on the top of the husk, that is that which is written in the verse: “And wither like the tops of the husks,” since this awn is on the top of the husk. But according to the one who says: Like the husk itself, what is the meaning of the expression “and wither like the tops of the husks”? Rav Asi says, and similarly the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: This can be explained by way of an analogy to a person who enters into his field, as he gathers the taller stalks before the shorter ones. The verse is therefore referring to the tallest stalks, not the tops of the stalks. The Gemara continues the discussion of arrogance, and its converse, humility. The verse states: “For thus says the High and Lofty One that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, also with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah 57:15). Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda offered differing interpretations of this verse. One says that the verse means: Together with Me is the person who is contrite and humble. In other words, God elevates the humble. And one says that the verse means: I, God, descend, and am found together with the person who is contrite and humble. The Gemara comments on this: And it stands to reason that the meaning of the verse is like the one who says: I am with the contrite person, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, disregarded all of the mountains and hills, and rested His Divine Presence on the lowly Mount Sinai, and He did not choose to raise Mount Sinai up toward Him. God chose to give the Torah on Mount Sinai, as it was a symbol of humility due to its lack of height, and He lowered His Divine Presence, as it were, to the mountain. Rav Yosef says: A person should always learn proper behavior from the wisdom of his Creator, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, disregarded all of the mountains and hills and rested His Divine Presence on the lowly Mount Sinai. And similarly, when appearing to Moses, He disregarded all of the beautiful trees and rested His Divine Presence on the bush (Exodus 3:2). Rabbi Elazar says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, it is fitting to hew him down, as a tree designated for idolatry [asheira] is hewn down, as it is written here with regard to the arrogant: “And the high ones of stature shall be hewn down [gedu’im]” (Isaiah 10:33), and it is written there with regard to trees designated for idolatry: “And hew down [teggade’un] their trees worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [asheireihem]” (Deuteronomy 7:5). And Rabbi Elazar also says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, his dust, i.e., his remains in his grave, will not stir at the time of the resurrection of the dead, as it is stated: “Awake and sing for joy, you who dwell in the dust” (Isaiah 26:19). It is not stated: You who lie in the dust, which would indicate that all the dead will be awakened in the future, but rather: “You who dwell in the dust,” indicating that only one who became a neighbor to the dust in his lifetime by living with extreme humility will stir at the time of the resurrection. And Rabbi Elazar says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, the Divine Presence wails over him. As it is stated: “For though the Lord is high, yet regards He the lowly, and from the haughty He is pained from afar” (Psalms 138:6). Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically, and some say that Rabbi Elazar interpreted as follows: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood is that the elevated sees the elevated, but the elevated does not see the lowly. But the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like that. He is elevated but sees specifically the lowly, as it is stated: “For though the Lord is high, yet regards He the lowly” (Psalms 138:6). Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that Mar Ukva says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: He and I cannot dwell together in the world, as it is stated: “He who slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I destroy; he who is haughty of eye and proud of heart, him will I not suffer [oto lo ukhal]” (Psalms 101:5–6). These verses should be understood as follows: Do not read the verse as: “Oto lo ukhal”; rather, read it as: Itto lo ukhal, meaning, with him, I cannot bear to dwell. There are those who teach that this was stated with regard to those who speak slander because the beginning of the verse states: “He who slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I destroy.” Rabbi Alexandri says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, even a slight wind disturbs him, as it is stated: “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, for it cannot rest” (Isaiah 57:20). And if with regard to the sea, which contains many quantities of quarters of a log of water, yet a slight wind disturbs it, certainly with regard to a person, who has in his body only one quarter-log of essential lifeblood, all the more so will a slight wind disturb him. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: Despite the opprobrium assigned to one who exhibits the trait of arrogance, a Torah scholar must have one-eighth of one-eighth of arrogance. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: And this minute measure of arrogance crowns him as the awn of bristle-like growth on the top of the husk. Rava said: A Torah scholar who has arrogance should be excommunicated, and one who does not have arrogance at all should be excommunicated as well. As such, he must have only a minute measure of arrogance. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even a Torah scholar should not have any arrogance or any part of arrogance, i.e., not even one-eighth of one-eighth. He explains why arrogance should be avoided entirely by asking: Is it a small matter that it is written with regard to arrogance: “Everyone that is proud of heart is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 16:5)? Ḥizkiyya says: The prayers of a person are heard only if he casts his heart to be like flesh, by being free of arrogance. As it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord” (Isaiah 66:23). Rabbi Zeira said: Concerning leprosy of the flesh, it is written in the verse with regard to it: “And when the flesh has in the skin thereof a boil, and it is healed” (Leviticus 13:18), but concerning the leprosy of a person, it is not written in the verse with regard to it: And it is healed. Both verses discussing leprosy of a person make no mention of healing (Leviticus 13:2, 13:9). This indicates that one who sees himself as flesh will be cured, but one who holds himself in high regard will not be cured. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Hebrew word for person, adam, written: Alef, dalet, mem, is an acronym for efer, dust; dam, blood; and mara, bile, alluding to man’s insignificance. Similarly, the Hebrew word for flesh, basar, written: Beit, sin, reish, is an acronym for busha, shame; seruḥa, putrid; and rimma, worm, also alluding to his insignificance. There are those who say that the letter sin of the word basar actually is referring to a different word, sheol, the netherworld, as it is written with the Hebrew letter shin. The letter sin is phonetically similar to the letter samekh, the first letter of the word seruḥa, but is orthographically similar to the letter shin, the first letter of the word sheol. The dispute is whether the acronym should be based upon the pronunciation or upon the way it is written. Rav Ashi says: Any person who has arrogance within him will ultimately be diminished in stature, as it is stated with regard to different types of leprosy: “And for a sore [se’et] and for a scab [sappaḥat]” (Leviticus 14:56), and se’et means nothing other than elevated, as it is stated: “And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up [nissaot]” (Isaiah 2:14). And sappaḥat means nothing other than an appendage, as it is stated in the context of the curse given to the descendants of Eli: “Put me [sefaḥeni], I pray of you, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread” (I Samuel 2:36). They will have to be joined with another priestly family to receive their priestly gifts. One can therefore interpret the verses discussing leprosy as teaching that one who initially is arrogant, se’et, will eventually become a sappaḥat, diminished in stature. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Come and see how great the lowly in spirit are before the Holy One, Blessed be He. For when the Temple was standing, a person would sacrifice a burnt-offering and the merit of a burnt-offering would be his; he would sacrifice a meal-offering and the merit of a meal-offering would be his. But with regard to one whose spirit is lowly, the verse ascribes him credit as if he had sacrificed all the sacrificial offerings, as it is stated: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19), indicating that one who is humble of spirit is regarded as if he offered all the “sacrifices of God.” And not only that, but his prayer is not despised by God, as it is stated at the end of that verse: “A broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also says: Whoever appraises his ways in this world, i.e., whoever carefully considers all his actions before deciding on the proper mode of conduct, merits and sees the salvation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “And to him that orders his way aright [vesam derekh] will I show the salvation of God” (Psalms 50:23). Do not read it as “vesam,” “that orders”; rather, read it as vesham derekh, that appraises his way. § The mishna teaches: How does he issue a warning to her in an effective manner? If he says to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man called so-and-so, and she nevertheless spoke with him, she is still permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband. However, if after he told her not to speak with so-and-so, she entered into a secluded place and remained with that man for sufficient time to engage in sexual intercourse, she is forbidden to her home, i.e., to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, from that moment until she undergoes the sota rite. The Gemara notes the apparent contradiction in the mishna: This matter itself is difficult: You said in detailing the wording of the warning that he said to her in the presence of two witnesses: Do not speak with the man called so-and-so, apparently indicating that speaking is tantamount to seclusion. Therefore, speaking with that man should result in the woman becoming forbidden to her husband.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה לָהּ? מוֹלִיכָהּ לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, וּמוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ. גְּמָ׳ תְּרֵי וְאִיהוּ — הָא תְּלָתָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בָּעִיר, אֲבָל בַּדֶּרֶךְ — עַד דְּאִיכָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁמָּא יִצְטָרֵךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לִנְקָבָיו, וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן מִתְיַיחֵד עִם הָעֶרְוָה. לָא: הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיהְווֹ עֲלֵיהּ סָהֲדִי. תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — אִין, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — לָא. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין, אֲבָל פְּרוּצִין, אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה נָמֵי לָא. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ עֲשָׂרָה בְּמִטָּה. לָא, הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — דְּיָדְעִי לְאַתְרוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּעְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! וְרַבָּנַן, הִיא הַנּוֹתֶנֶת: נִדָּה דְּכָרֵת — חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ וּמְהֵימַן. סוֹטָה דְּלָאו — לָא חֲמִירָא לֵיהּ, וְלָא מְהֵימַן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִקְּרָאֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״. מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא בְּכָרֵת — בַּעְלָהּ נֶאֱמָן עָלֶיהָ, סוֹטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּלָאו — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנִדָּה — שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר, תֹּאמַר בְּסוֹטָה — שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר? וְאוֹמֵר: ״מַיִם גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ וְגוֹ׳״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ״! אֲמַר לְהוּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּרֵישָׁא וּפַרְכוּהּ, וַהֲדַר אָמַר לְהוּ קְרָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ ״אֲבָל אָמְרוּ״. מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת.
MISHNA: The mishna details the procedure for administering the drinking of the bitter water of a sota. What does her husband do with her after she secluded herself with the man about whom she had been warned? He brings her to the court that is found in that location, and the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple, which is not only prohibited but will also prevent the bitter water from evaluating her. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her, so there is no need to provide scholars to accompany him. GEMARA: The Gemara assumes that the requirement for there to be two Torah scholars is to avoid the prohibition against a woman being alone with a man. The Gemara notes: Two additional men and he, the husband, are three people altogether. Let us say that this mishna supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only in the town (see Kiddushin 80b). But on the way, when traveling, this is not permitted unless there are three men with the woman. The reason for this stringency is that if there are only two men with her, perhaps one will need to relieve himself and will seek privacy, and it will be found that one of them is in seclusion with a woman forbidden to him. The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, so that there are two witnesses with regard to her, i.e., there will be two witnesses to testify in the event that the husband engages in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The reason is not to avoid the prohibition against her being alone with a man, as one scholar would suffice for that. The mishna teaches that the husband is provided with Torah scholars. The Gemara further comments: Torah scholars, yes; anyone else, no. It is specifically Torah scholars who are provided to accompany the husband and wife. Let us say that this mishna supports another statement of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When they taught that it is permitted for a woman to be secluded with two men, they taught that this is permitted only with regard to men of fit morals. But with regard to those of loose morals, she may not be secluded even with ten men. The Gemara adds: There was an incident and ten men carried out a woman on a bier, as if she were dead, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The Gemara refutes this assumption: No, here, in the case of a sota, this is the reason why there is a requirement for two scholars, that they know how to properly warn him not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, this mishna does not support the opinion of Rav. § The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (1:2): Rabbi Yehuda says: Her husband is trusted due to an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, as he is permitted to seclude himself with her, so too, with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband only by penalty of a prohibition, is it not all the more so that he should be trusted? And the Rabbis say: That provides support for the contrary opinion, as these considerations lead to the opposite conclusion. A menstruating woman is forbidden by penalty of karet. This is a stringent prohibition for him, and this is why he is trusted not to engage in sexual intercourse with her. By contrast, a sota is forbidden to him only by a prohibition. This is not a stringent prohibition to him, and he is therefore not trusted with her. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact derive this halakha from an a fortiori inference? But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from a verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest” (Numbers 5:15), teaches that by Torah law the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, but the Sages said: The court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him, lest he engage in sexual intercourse with her on the way to the Temple. The baraita records a second opinion. Rabbi Yosei says: Her husband is trusted with regard to her based on an a fortiori inference: And just as a menstruating woman, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of karet, and her husband is nevertheless trusted with regard to her, then with regard to a sota, who is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband by penalty of only a prohibition, should he not all the more so be trusted? The Sages said to him: No, if you say that this is true with regard to a menstruating woman, the reason he is trusted is not due to the severity of the prohibition. Rather, he is trusted because she has the ability to become permitted to her husband after her menstrual flow has ceased and she has immersed in a ritual bath. Shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a sota, who potentially does not have the ability to become permitted to her husband due to her suspected adultery? And proof to the notion that people will more readily commit illicit acts that are permanently prohibited comes from the verse that states: “Stolen waters are sweet and bread eaten in secret is pleasing” (Proverbs 9:17). Consequently, there is a concern that the husband will engage in sexual intercourse with his sota wife if not accompanied by scholars. The baraita quotes a third opinion. Rabbi Yehuda says: By Torah law, the man alone brings his wife to the Temple, as is stated: “Then shall the man bring his wife to the priest.” This baraita states explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda derives this halakha from the verse itself, not from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda first said to them the a fortiori inference, and they refuted it as mentioned above, and he then said to them the derivation from the verse. The Gemara clarifies: Apparently, the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna in the baraita, who also cites the verse as proof that by Torah law the husband alone brings his wife to the priest. The Gemara explains: The difference between them concerns the following clause: But the Sages said that the court provides him with two Torah scholars to accompany him. The first tanna holds that the Sages require two scholars to accompany the husband and wife, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that they do not.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּימִין עָלֶיהָ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּימִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאוֹמֵר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂין. עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם. וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָם כְּדַי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכׇל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ — שׁוֹבֶרֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת. וְאִם אָמְרָה ״טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ — מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְצוֹרָעִין. וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ. אִם נִקְרְעוּ — נִקְרְעוּ. וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ — נִפְרְמוּ. עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ. וְסוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּהוּ, וְאִם הָיָה שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה — לֹא הָיָה סוֹתֵר. הָיְתָה מִתְכַּסָּה בִּלְבָנִים — מְכַסֶּהָ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. הָיָה עָלֶיהָ כְּלֵי זָהָב וְקַטְלֵיאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת — מַעֲבִירִין מִמֶּנָּה, כְּדֵי לְנַוְּולָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ, וְכׇל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא לִרְאוֹת, חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהֶן. וְכׇל הַנָּשִׁים מוּתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה״.
MISHNA: The mishna details the next stage of the process. They would bring her up to the Sanhedrin that was in Jerusalem, and the judges would threaten her in order that she admit her sin. And this was done in the manner that they would threaten witnesses testifying in cases of capital law. In those cases, the judges would explain to the witnesses the gravity of their testimony by stressing the value of human life. Here too, the judges would attempt to convince the woman to admit her sin, to avoid the loss of her life. And additionally, the judge would say to her: My daughter, wine causes a great deal of immoral behavior, levity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, immaturity causes a great deal of immoral behavior, and bad neighbors cause a great deal of immoral behavior. The judge encouraged her to admit her sin by explaining to her that he understands that there may have been mitigating factors. The judge then continues: Act for the sake of His great name, so that God’s name, which is written in sanctity, shall not be erased on the water. If the woman admits to having committed adultery, the scroll upon which the name of God is written will not be erased. And additionally, the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family, in order to encourage her to admit her sin, as the Gemara will explain. If after the judge’s warning she says: I am defiled, she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. That is, she writes a receipt indicating that she has no claims on her husband with regard to the sum written in her marriage contract, as a woman who admits to adultery forfeits her right to this payment. And she is then divorced from her husband. But if after the warning she maintains her innocence and says: I am pure, they bring her up to the Eastern Gate, which is at the opening of the Gate of Nicanor, because three rites were performed there: They give the sota women the bitter water to drink, and they purify women who have given birth (see Leviticus 12:6–8), and they purify the lepers (see Leviticus 14:10–20). The mishna continues describing the sota rite. And the priest grabs hold of her clothing and pulls them, unconcerned about what happens to the clothing. If the clothes are torn, so they are torn; if the stitches come apart, so they come apart. And he pulls her clothing until he reveals her heart, i.e., her chest. And then he unbraids her hair. Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. If she was dressed in white garments, he would now cover her with black garments. If she was wearing gold adornments, or chokers [katliyot], or nose rings, or finger rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward the priest would bring an Egyptian rope fashioned from palm fibers, and he would tie it above her breasts. And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, who are not permitted to watch because her heart is emboldened by them, as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).
וְאוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל הַגָּדָה, וּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁאֵירְעוּ בִּכְתוּבִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, כְּגוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר חֲכָמִים יַגִּידוּ וְלֹא כִחֲדוּ מֵאֲבוֹתָם״. יְהוּדָה הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רְאוּבֵן הוֹדָה וְלֹא בּוֹשׁ, מֶה הָיָה סוֹפוֹ — נָחַל חַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וּמָה שְׂכָרָן? מָה שְׂכָרָן?! כִּדְקָא אָמְרִינַן! אֶלָּא: מָה שְׂכָרָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״לָהֶם לְבַדָּם נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא עָבַר זָר בְּתוֹכָם״. בִּשְׁלָמָא בִּיהוּדָה אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאוֹדִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״, אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן מְנָלַן דְּאוֹדִי? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״יְחִי רְאוּבֵן וְאַל יָמֹת״, ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״? כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, הָיוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יְהוּדָה מְגוּלְגָּלִין בָּאָרוֹן, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי גָּרַם לִרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹדָה — יְהוּדָה: ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?! מִיָּד: ״שְׁמַע ה׳ קוֹל יְהוּדָה״, עָל אֵיבְרֵיהּ לְשָׁפָא. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא מְעַיְּילִין לֵיהּ לִמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא, ״וְאֶל עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ״. וְלָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע מִשְׁקַל וּמִטְרַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי רַבָּנַן, ״יָדָיו רָב לוֹ״. לָא הֲוָה קָא סָלְקָא לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִילְכְתָא, ״וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה״. בִּשְׁלָמָא יְהוּדָה דְּאוֹדִי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא תִּישָּׂרֵף תָּמָר. אֶלָּא רְאוּבֵן, לְמָה לֵיהּ דְּאוֹדִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֲצִיף עֲלַי דִּמְפָרֵיט חֶטְאֵיהּ? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיחַשְׁדוּ אֲחוֹהִי. אִם אָמְרָה ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״ וְכוּ׳. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.
The mishna teaches: And the judge says in her presence matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a baraita that details what was said. The Sages taught in a baraita: The judge says in her presence words of homiletical interpretation and mentions incidents that happened to previous generations that are recorded in the early prophetic writings. For example, they expound the following verse: “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred. For example, Judah admitted that he sinned with Tamar and was not embarrassed to do so, and what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah and was not embarrassed, and what was his end? He too inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And what is their reward? The Gemara interjects: What is their reward? Their reward was clearly as we say, that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: Rather, the second question was: What is their reward in this world? The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes. The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. Granted, with regard to Judah we have found a source that he admitted his sin with Tamar, as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. But from where do we derive that Reuben admitted his sin? The Gemara answers: It is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: “And this for Judah, and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, were rolling around in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on Judah’s behalf. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was Judah, as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: “And this for Judah,” as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around? Immediately after Moses prayed, the verse states: “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7). His bones then entered their sockets [shafa], and his skeleton was reassembled. But the angels still did not elevate him into the heavenly study hall. Moses then prayed: “And bring him in unto his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, but he still did not know how to deliberate in Torah matters with the heavenly sages. Moses then prayed: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still he was unable to draw conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha. Moses then prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. Granted, with regard to Judah, it was proper that he admitted his sin in public, as he did so in order that Tamar not be burned innocently. But why did Reuben admit his sin in public? But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I consider one who specifies his sins in public to be brazen, as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was in order that his brothers should not be suspected of having committed the deed.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ וְכוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָיֵישׁ לְהִרְהוּרָא, וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁי? וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִישׁ, מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד מִלְּפָנָיו, וְהָאִשָּׁה, שְׁנֵי פְּרָקִים — אֶחָד מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וְאֶחָד מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ עֶרְוָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרוּמָּה! אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי — שֶׁמָּא תֵּצֵא מִבֵּית דִּין זַכָּאִית, וְיִתְגָּרוּ בָּהּ פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה. הָתָם — הָא מִסְתַּלְּקָא. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָתֵי לְאִיגָּרוֹיֵי בְּאַחְרָנְיָיתָא — הָאָמַר רָבָא: גְּמִירִי דְּאֵין יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹלֵט אֶלָּא בְּמַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת. אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנִּין. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָכָא טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם ״וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים״. הָתָם — אֵין לְךָ יִיסּוּר גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. וְכִי תֵּימָא לַעֲבֵיד בַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ — בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה. לֵימָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: בִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִצַּעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: צַעְרָא דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף לֵיהּ טְפֵי מִבִּזְיוֹנֵיהּ.
The mishna continues by citing that Rabbi Yehuda says: If her heart was attractive he would not reveal it, and if her hair was attractive he would not unbraid it. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is prohibited to uncover an attractive woman, is concerned about onlookers having sexual thoughts, and the Rabbis, who permit it, are not concerned about this? But we have heard the opposite from them, as it is taught in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 9:6): Although a man condemned to stoning is stoned unclothed, the court covers him with one small piece of material in front of him, to obscure his genitals, and they cover a woman with two small pieces of material, one in front of her and one behind her, because all of her loins are nakedness, as her genitals are visible both from the front and from the back. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: A man is stoned while naked, but a woman is not stoned while naked, but fully clothed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned that the onlookers seeing the woman unclothed will lead to sexual thoughts, but the Rabbis are concerned about this. Rabba said: What is the reason here, with regard to a sota, that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned? Perhaps the sota will leave the court having been proven innocent, and the young priests in the Temple who saw her partially naked will become provoked by the sight of her. There, in the case of a woman who is stoned, she departs from this world by being stoned and there is no concern for sexual thoughts. The Gemara comments: And if you would say that the fact that she is killed is irrelevant to their sexual thoughts, as the onlookers will be provoked with regard to other women, this is not a concern. As didn’t Rava say: It is learned as a tradition that the evil inclination controls only that which a person’s eyes see. Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis, as with regard to a sota, they are not concerned about sexual thoughts, but with regard to a woman who is stoned they are. Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered above. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult as well. Here, with regard to a sota, what is the reason that her hair and body are uncovered? Because of what is stated in the verse, that other women should be warned: “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be chastened not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48). There, with regard to stoning, you have no greater chastening than seeing this stoning itself. And if you would say that two forms of chastening, both stoning and humiliation, should be done with her, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The verse states: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), teaching that even with regard to a condemned prisoner, select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. Therefore, when putting a woman to death by stoning, she should not be humiliated in the process. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the statement of Rav Naḥman is a dispute between tanna’im, and according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no mitzva to select a compassionate death. The Gemara refutes this: No, it may be that everyone agrees with the opinion of Rav Naḥman, and here they disagree about this: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: Minimizing one’s degradation is preferable to him than minimizing his physical pain. Therefore, the Rabbis view the more compassionate death as one without degradation, even if wearing clothes will increase the pain of the one being executed, as the clothes will absorb the blow and prolong death. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that minimizing physical pain is preferable to a person than minimizing his degradation, and therefore the one being executed prefers to be stoned unclothed, without any chance of the clothing prolonging the death, although this adds to the degradation.
מַתְנִי׳ בְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד — בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם נִוְּולָהּ. הִיא גִּלְּתָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ לַעֲבֵירָה — הַמָּקוֹם גִּלָּה עָלֶיהָ. בַּיָּרֵךְ הִתְחִילָּה בַּעֲבֵירָה תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן — לְפִיכָךְ תִּלְקֶה הַיָּרֵךְ תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הַבֶּטֶן, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַגּוּף לֹא פָּלַט. גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדָּה בְּטֵילָה, בַּמִּדָּה לֹא בָּטֵיל. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִי — אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. וְהָא בָּטְלוּ?! אֶלָּא: דִּין אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב סְקִילָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל מִן הַגָּג, אוֹ חַיָּה דּוֹרַסְתּוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׂרֵיפָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל בִּדְלֵיקָה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מַכִּישׁוֹ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה — אוֹ נִמְסָר לַמַּלְכוּת, אוֹ לִיסְטִין בָּאִין עָלָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב חֲנִיקָה — אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ מֵת בִּסְרוֹנְכֵי. תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁבְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סְאָה, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת תַּרְקַב וַחֲצִי תַּרְקַב, קַב וַחֲצִי קַב, רוֹבַע וַחֲצִי רוֹבַע, תּוֹמֶן וְעוּכְלָא, מִנַּיִן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁכׇּל פְּרוּטָה וּפְרוּטָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן גָּדוֹל — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן״.
MISHNA: The mishna teaches lessons that can be derived from the actions and treatment of a sota. With the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it. For example, she, the sota, adorned herself to violate a transgression, the Omnipresent therefore decreed that she be rendered unattractive; she exposed herself for the purpose of violating a transgression, as she stood in places where she would be noticed by potential adulterers, so the Omnipresent therefore decreed that her body be exposed publicly; she began her transgression with her thigh and afterward with her stomach, therefore the thigh is smitten first and then the stomach, and the rest of all her body does not escape punishment. GEMARA: Rav Yosef says: Although the measure with regard to court-imposed capital punishment has ceased, as there is no court today empowered to adjudicate and apply corporal punishment, punishment that is suitable to be applied with a measure by God has not ceased, as a person is punished by Heaven in accordance with his sin. As Rav Yosef says, and Rabbi Ḥiyya similarly teaches: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four types of court-imposed capital punishment have not ceased. The Gemara asks: But they have ceased; court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. Rather, the intention is: The law of the four types of court-imposed capital punishment has not ceased. The Gemara explains: How so? One who is liable to be executed by stoning either falls from a roof or an animal mauls him and breaks his bones. This death is similar to the experience of stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. One who is liable to be executed by burning either falls into a fire and is burned or a snake bites him, as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. One who is liable to be executed by slaying of the sword either is turned over to the authorities and they execute him with a sword, or robbers come upon him and murder him. One who is liable to be executed by strangling either drowns in a river and is choked by the water or dies of diphtheria [seronekhi], which causes his throat to become clogged, and he dies. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:1–5) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: From where is it derived that with the measure that a person measures, he is measured with it? As it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). In other words, in the measure, bese’a, that one used in one’s sin, God will contend with, i.e., punish, him. The baraita continues: I have derived only the relatively large measurement of a se’a, which alludes to a significant sin. From where do I know to include even lesser sins that are comparable to smaller measurements, e.g., a half-se’a [tarkav] and a half-tarkav; a kav and a half-kav; a quarter-kav and half of a quarter-kav; an eighth-kav [toman] and an ukla, which is one-thirty-second of a kav. From where is it derived that all these lesser sins are also dealt with in accordance with the measure of the sin? The verse states: “For every boot [sa’on] stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire” (Isaiah 9:4), indicating that every sa’on, which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets as a small se’a, is “stamped with fierceness” and doesn’t go unpunished. And from where is it derived that each and every peruta combine to add up to a great sum, alluding to the notion that even if one is not immediately punished for a small transgression, in the final accounting all misdeeds will combine together and be addressed by the imposition of a large punishment? The verse states: “Behold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27).
וְכֵן מָצִינוּ בַּסּוֹטָה, שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה שֶׁמָּדְדָה — בָּהּ מָדְדוּ לָהּ: הִיא עָמְדָה עַל פֶּתַח בֵּיתָהּ לֵירָאוֹת לוֹ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַעֲמִידָהּ עַל שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר וּמַרְאֶה קְלוֹנָהּ לַכֹּל. הִיא פָּרְסָה לוֹ סוּדָרִין נָאִין עַל רֹאשָׁהּ —לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל כִּפָּה מֵעַל רֹאשָׁהּ וּמַנִּיחוֹ תַּחַת רַגְלֶיהָ. הִיא קִשְּׁטָה לוֹ פָּנֶיהָ —לְפִיכָךְ פָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת. הִיא כָּחֲלָה לוֹ עֵינֶיהָ — לְפִיכָךְ עֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת. הִיא קָלְעָה לוֹ אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן סוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. הִיא הֶרְאֲתָה לוֹ בְּאֶצְבַּע — לְפִיכָךְ צִיפּוֹרְנֶיהָ נוֹשְׁרוֹת. הִיא חָגְרָה לוֹ בְּצִילְצוֹל — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מֵבִיא חֶבֶל הַמִּצְרִי וְקוֹשֵׁר לָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ. הִיא פָּשְׁטָה לוֹ אֶת יְרֵיכָהּ — לְפִיכָךְ יְרֵיכָהּ נוֹפֶלֶת. הִיא קִיבְּלַתּוּ עַל כְּרֵיסָהּ — לְפִיכָךְ בִּטְנָהּ צָבָה. הִיא הֶאֱכִילַתּוּ מַעֲדַנֵּי עוֹלָם — לְפִיכָךְ קׇרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה. הִיא הִשְׁקַתְהוּ יַיִן מְשׁוּבָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת מְשׁוּבָּחִים — לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַשְׁקֶה מַיִם הַמָּרִים בִּמְקִידָּה שֶׁל חֶרֶשׂ. הִיא עָשְׂתָה בַּסֵּתֶר — יוֹשֵׁב בְּסֵתֶר עֶלְיוֹן״ שָׂם בָּהּ פָּנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעֵין נֹאֵף שָׁמְרָה נֶשֶׁף לֵאמֹר לֹא תְשׁוּרֵנִי עָיִן וְגוֹ׳״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: הִיא עָשְׂתָה בַּסֵּתֶר — הַמָּקוֹם פִּירְסְמָה בַּגָּלוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תִּכַּסֶּה שִׂנְאָה בְּמַשָּׁאוֹן תִּגָּלֶה רָעָתוֹ בְקָהָל (וְגוֹ׳)״. וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן״, ״כִּי כׇל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכַמִּדָּה.
The baraita continues: And we found this with regard to a sota, that with the measure with which she measured, she is measured with it: She stood by the opening of her house to exhibit herself to her paramour, therefore a priest has her stand at the Gate of Nicanor and exhibits her disgrace to all; she spread beautiful shawls [sudarin] on her head for her paramour, therefore a priest removes her kerchief from her head and places it under her feet; she adorned her face for her paramour, therefore her face becomes sallow after drinking the bitter water; she painted her eyes for her paramour, therefore her eyes bulge after she drinks; she braided her hair for her paramour, therefore a priest unbraids her hair and makes it disheveled; she indicated to her paramour with a finger that he should come to her, therefore her fingernails fall off; she girded herself for her paramour with a ribbon as a belt, therefore a priest brings an Egyptian rope and ties it for her above her breasts; she extended her thigh for her paramour, therefore her thigh falls away after drinking. She received her paramour upon her stomach, therefore her stomach swells; she fed him delicacies of the world, therefore her offering is animal food, as it is from oats; she gave him fine wine to drink in fine cups, therefore a priest gives her bitter water in an earthenware mekeida, a simple clay vessel, to drink. She acted in secret; therefore, God, referred to in the verse “Who dwell in secret, with the Most High” (Psalms 91:1), turns His face to her, as it is stated: “The eye of the adulterer waits for the twilight, saying: No eye shall see me; and the Hidden Face will turn” (Job 24:15). The adulterer acts in the twilight of the night to act in secrecy, and therefore God, Who is concealed, arranges that the matter is revealed in public. Alternatively, she acted in secret, and therefore the Omnipresent revealed it in the open, as it is stated: “Though his hatred be concealed with deceit, his wickedness shall be revealed before the congregation” (Proverbs 26:26), i.e., concealed acts of sin are ultimately revealed in public.
וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אַחַת לְאַחַת לִמְצֹא חֶשְׁבּוֹן״, ״כִּי כׇל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכַמִּדָּה. וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״כִּי כׇל סְאוֹן סֹאֵן בְּרַעַשׁ״, ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב חִינָּנָא בַּר פָּפָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר פָּפָּא: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִפְרָע מִן הָאוּמָּה עַד שְׁעַת שִׁילּוּחָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ וְגוֹ׳״. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: שָׁלֹשׁ(ה) כּוֹסוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִצְרַיִם, לָמָּה? אַחַת שֶׁשָּׁתָת בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה, וְאַחַת שֶׁשָּׁתָת בִּימֵי פַּרְעֹה נְכֹה, וְאַחַת שֶׁעֲתִידָה לִשְׁתּוֹת עִם חַבְרוֹתֶיהָ! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנָךְ אֲזַדוּ וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ — וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִנְיָמִין גֵּר הַמִּצְרִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר מִנְיָמִין גֵּר הַמִּצְרִי: אֲנִי מִצְרִי רִאשׁוֹן, וְנָשָׂאתִי מִצְרִית רִאשׁוֹנָה, אַשִּׂיא לִבְנֵי מִצְרִית שְׁנִיָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן בְּנִי מוּתָּר לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל! אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר פָּפָּא: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִפְרָע מִן הַמֶּלֶךְ עַד שְׁעַת שִׁילּוּחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּסַאסְּאָה בְּשַׁלְּחָהּ תְּרִיבֶנָּה וְגוֹ׳״. אַמֵּימָר מַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּרַב חִינָּנָא בַּר פָּפָּא אַהָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ לֹא שָׁנִיתִי וְאַתֶּם בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב לֹא כְלִיתֶם״? ״אֲנִי ה׳ לֹא שָׁנִיתִי״ — לֹא הִכֵּיתִי לְאוּמָּהּ וְשָׁנִיתִי לָהּ. ״וְאַתֶּם בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב לֹא כְלִיתֶם״ — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״חִצַּי אֲכַלֶּה בָּם״. חִצַּי כָּלִין, וְהֵן אֵינָן כָּלִין. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִפְרָע מִן הָאָדָם עַד שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא סְאָתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּמְלֹאות שִׂפְקוֹ יֵצֶר לוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ The Gemara questions the need for two verses to indicate that small transgressions are addressed through one significant punishment. And since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives that small transgressions are combined and punished together from: “Behold, this have I found, says Koheleth, adding one thing to another, to find out the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27), why do I need the verse: “For every boot stamped with fierceness” (Isaiah 9:4)? The Gemara answers: This verse serves to teach that even small transgressions are punished by the measure, i.e., with a punishment appropriate to the transgression. The Gemara asks: And since he derives it from “for every boot stamped with fierceness,” why do I need “in full measure, when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8)? The Gemara answers: This verse serves to teach the statement as taught by Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa, for Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not punish a nation deserving of punishment until its time to be banished, i.e., until the time of its final eradication from the world, as it is stated: “In full measure, when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Why are there specifically three cups of misfortune that are stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of its chief butler (see Genesis 40:11–13)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that it drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that it drank in the days of Pharaoh Neco, the king of Egypt who was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that it will drink in the future with its companions, i.e., the other nations, when they are punished during the days of the Messiah. This indicates that nations can be punished several times, not only when they are eradicated. And if you would say that those ancient Egyptians, have gone, and these later Egyptians are different ones, but isn’t it taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Kiddushin 4:3): Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and Minyamin the Egyptian convert said: After I converted I was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first-generation Egyptian convert. I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second-generation Egyptian convert, in order that my son’s son will be permitted to enter into the congregation. The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts before the third generation to enter into the congregation (see Deuteronomy 23:8–9). By Minyamin’s observance of this prohibition even during the time of Rabbi Akiva, it indicates that Egypt during the tannaitic period was still viewed as biblical Egypt. Rather, if anything was stated with regard to the delay of punishment, it was stated like this: Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not punish a sinful king until his time to be banished, as it is stated: “In full measure, when you send her away, you contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8). Ameimar teaches that statement of Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa with regard to this: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For I the Lord change not; and you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6)? “For I the Lord change [shaniti] not” is interpreted to mean: I did not strike a nation and repeat [shaniti] striking it, as a stricken nation never recovers from the initial strike. “And you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed,” is interpreted to mean: Despite the fact that I strike you many times for your sins, I do not let you perish. This is the same as that which is written: “I will heap evils upon them; I will consume My arrows upon them” (Deuteronomy 32:23), which is interpreted to mean: My arrows are consumed and used up, and they, the Jewish people, are not consumed but will continue to endure despite the many calamities that will befall them. Rav Hamnuna says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not punish a person until his se’a, the measure that is suitable for him, is filled, as it is stated: “In the fullness of his sufficiency he shall be in straits; the hand of every one that is in misery shall come upon him” (Job 20:22). In other words, when the sufficient measure of sin has been reached, then the trouble will overtake him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סוֹטָה נָתְנָה עֵינֶיהָ בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָהּ, מַה שֶּׁבִּיקְּשָׁה — לֹא נִיתַּן לָהּ, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדָהּ — נְטָלוּהוּ מִמֶּנָּה. שֶׁכׇּל הַנּוֹתֵן עֵינָיו בְּמַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ — מַה שֶּׁמְבַקֵּשׁ אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ — נוֹטְלִין הֵימֶנּוּ. וְכֵן מָצִינוּ בְּנָחָשׁ הַקַּדְמוֹנִי, שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּמַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹ — מַה שֶּׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לֹא נָתְנוּ לוֹ, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדוֹ נְטָלוּהוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי יְהֵא מֶלֶךְ עַל כׇּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְעַכְשָׁיו ״אָרוּר הוּא מִכׇּל הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה״. אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי יְהַלֵּךְ בְּקוֹמָה זְקוּפָה, עַכְשָׁיו — ״עַל גְּחוֹנוֹ יֵלֵךְ״. אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי יְהֵא מַאֲכָלוֹ מַאֲכַל אָדָם, עַכְשָׁיו — ״עָפָר יֹאכַל״. הוּא אָמַר אֶהֱרוֹג אֶת אָדָם וְאֶשָּׂא אֶת חַוָּה, עַכְשָׁיו — ״אֵיבָה אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ״. וְכֵן מָצִינוּ בְּקַיִן וְקֹרַח וּבִלְעָם וְדוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתוֹפֶל וְגֵחֲזִי וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם וַאֲדוֹנִיָּהוּ וְעוּזִּיָּהוּ וְהָמָן — שֶׁנָּתְנוּ עֵינֵיהֶם בְּמַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָהֶם. מַה שֶּׁבִּיקְּשׁוּ — לֹא נִיתַּן לָהֶם, וּמַה שֶּׁבְּיָדָם — נְטָלוּהוּ מֵהֶם.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (4:16–19): The sota placed her eyes, fixed her gaze, on one who is unfit for her, i.e., another man, so this is her punishment: That which she desired, i.e., to be with her paramour, is not given to her, as she becomes forbidden to him forever. And that which she had, i.e., her husband, was taken away from her, as she is now forbidden to him as well. This teaches that anyone who places his eyes on that which is not his is not given what he desires, and that which he had is taken from him. And, so too, we found with regard to the primeval snake who seduced Eve, for he placed his eyes on that which was unfit for him, as he wanted to marry Eve. Consequently, that which he desired was not given to him, and that which was in his possession was taken from him. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I initially said that the snake will be king over every domesticated animal and non-domesticated animal, but now he is cursed more than all the domesticated animals and all the non-domesticated animals of the field, as it is stated: “And the Lord God said unto the serpent: Because you have done this, you are cursed from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:14). The baraita explains the elements of this curse. I said that the snake will walk upright, but now he shall go on his belly; I said that his food will be the same as the food eaten by a person, but now he shall eat dust. The snake said: I will kill Adam and marry Eve, but now: “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15). The baraita continues: And so we found with regard to Cain, who desired to inherit the whole world alone (see Genesis 4); and Korah, who desired the priesthood (see Numbers 16); and Balaam, who desired Balak’s money (see Numbers 22); and Doeg, who was jealous of David (see I Samuel 21–22); and Ahithophel, who was also jealous of David (see II Samuel 16); and Gehazi, who took Naaman’s money (see II Kings 5); and Absalom, who wanted the kingdom (see II Samuel 15); and Adonijah, who also wanted the kingdom (see I Kings 1); and Uzziah, who wanted to be the High Priest (see II Chronicles 26); and Haman, who wanted to kill all the Jews (see Esther 3:13). All of these were people who placed their eyes on that which is unfit for them, and consequently what they desired was not given to them, and what they had was taken from them.
מַתְנִי׳ שִׁמְשׁוֹן הָלַךְ אַחַר עֵינָיו — לְפִיכָךְ נִקְּרוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים אֶת עֵינָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאחֲזוּהוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיְנַקְּרוּ אֶת עֵינָיו״. אַבְשָׁלוֹם נִתְגָּאָה בִּשְׂעָרוֹ — לְפִיכָךְ נִתְלָה בִּשְׂעָרוֹ. וּלְפִי שֶׁבָּא עַל עֶשֶׂר פִּלַגְשֵׁי אָבִיו — לְפִיכָךְ נִתְּנוּ בּוֹ עֶשֶׂר לוֹנְבִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּסֹבּוּ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים נוֹשְׂאֵי כְּלֵי יוֹאָב״. וּלְפִי שֶׁגָּנַב שָׁלֹשׁ גְּנֵבוֹת: לֵב אָבִיו, וְלֵב בֵּית דִּין, וְלֵב יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְגַנֵּב אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת לֵב אַנְשֵׁי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — לְפִיכָךְ נִתְקְעוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁבָטִים בְּכַפּוֹ וַיִּתְקָעֵם בְּלֵב אַבְשָׁלוֹם״. וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה: מִרְיָם הִמְתִּינָה לְמֹשֶׁה שָׁעָה אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵרָחוֹק״ — לְפִיכָךְ נִתְעַכְּבוּ לָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁבְעָה יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָעָם לֹא נָסַע עַד הֵאָסֵף מִרְיָם״. יוֹסֵף זָכָה לִקְבּוֹר אֶת אָבִיו, וְאֵין בְּאֶחָיו גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַל יוֹסֵף לִקְבֹּר אֶת אָבִיו וַיַּעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ גַּם רֶכֶב גַּם פָּרָשִׁים״. מִי לָנוּ גָּדוֹל מִיּוֹסֵף, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ אֶלָּא מֹשֶׁה. מֹשֶׁה זָכָה בְּעַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף, וְאֵין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ״ — מִי גָּדוֹל מִמֹּשֶׁה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ אֶלָּא הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״. לֹא עַל מֹשֶׁה בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא עַל כׇּל הַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ כְּבוֹד ה׳ יַאַסְפֶךָ״.
MISHNA: The mishna provides additional examples of people who were treated by Heaven commensurate with their actions. Samson followed his eyes, therefore he was punished measure for measure, as the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is stated: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). Absalom was excessively proud of his hair, and therefore he was hanged by his hair. And furthermore, because he engaged in sexual intercourse with ten of his father’s concubines (see II Samuel 15:16 and 16:22), therefore ten spears [loneviyyot] were put, i.e., thrust, into him, as it is stated: “And ten young men that bore Joab’s armor compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him” (II Samuel 18:15). And because he stole three times, committing three thefts of people’s hearts: The heart of his father, as he tricked him by saying that he was going to sacrifice offerings; the heart of the court, as he tricked them into following him; and the heart of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6), therefore three spears were embedded into his heart, as it is stated: “Then said Joab: I may not tarry like this with you. And he took three spears in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive” (II Samuel 18:14). The mishna continues: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds; a person is rewarded measure for measure. Miriam waited for the baby Moses for one hour at the shore of the Nile, as it is stated: “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4). Therefore the Jewish people delayed their travels in the desert for seven days to wait for her when she was smitten with leprosy, as it is stated: “And Miriam was confined outside of the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not until Miriam was brought in again” (Numbers 12:15). Joseph merited to bury his father, resulting in a display of great honor to his father, and there was none among his brothers greater than he in importance, for he was viceroy of Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the Elders of his house, and all the Elders of the land of Egypt, and all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house; only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen. And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen; and it was a very great company” (Genesis 50:7–9). Who, to us, had a greater burial than Joseph, as it was none other than Moses who involved himself in transporting his coffin. Moses merited to be the only person involved in the transportation of Joseph’s bones to be buried in Eretz Yisrael, and there was none among the Jewish people greater than he, as it is stated: “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him” (Exodus 13:19). Who had a greater burial than Moses, as no one involved himself in his burial other than the Omnipresent Himself, as it is stated: “And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth Peor; and no man knows of his sepulcher unto this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6). The mishna comments: Not only with regard to Moses did the Sages say that God takes part in his burial, but also with regard to all the righteous individuals, as it is stated: “Your righteousness shall go before you and the glory of the Lord shall gather you in” (Isaiah 58:8).
מֹשֶׁה זָכָה בְּעַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף, וְאֵין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ״ — מִי גָּדוֹל מִמֹּשֶׁה שֶׁלֹּא נִתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ אֶלָּא הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְבֹּר אוֹתוֹ בַּגַּי״. לֹא עַל מֹשֶׁה בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא עַל כׇּל הַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ צִדְקֶךָ כְּבוֹד ה׳ יַאַסְפֶךָ״. גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁמְשׁוֹן בְּעֵינָיו מָרַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל אָבִיו אוֹתָהּ קַח לִי כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי״ — לְפִיכָךְ נִקְּרוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים אֶת עֵינָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאחֲזוּהוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיְנַקְּרוּ אֶת עֵינָיו״. אִינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לֹא יָדְעוּ כִּי מֵה׳ הִיא״. כִּי אֲזַל מִיהָא — בָּתַר יַשְׁרוּתֵיהּ אֲזַל. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: תְּחִילַּת קִלְקוּלוֹ בְּעַזָּה, לְפִיכָךְ לָקָה בְּעַזָּה. תְּחִילַּת קִלְקוּלוֹ בְּעַזָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ שִׁמְשׁוֹן עַזָּתָה וַיַּרְא שָׁם אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה וְגוֹ׳״, לְפִיכָךְ לָקָה בְּעַזָּה דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיּוֹרִידוּ אוֹתוֹ עַזָּתָהּ״. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשׁוֹן תִּמְנָתָה״? תְּחִלַּת קִלְקוּלוֹ מִיהָא בְּעַזָּה הֲוָה. ״וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי כֵן וַיֶּאֱהַב אִשָּׁה בְּנַחַל שֹׂרֵק וּשְׁמָהּ דְּלִילָה״. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אִילְמָלֵא לֹא נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״דְּלִילָה״ — רְאוּיָה הָיְתָה שֶׁתִּקָּרֵא דְּלִילָה: דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת כֹּחוֹ, דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת לִבּוֹ, דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו. דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת כֹּחוֹ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּסַר כֹּחוֹ מֵעָלָיו״. דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת לִבּוֹ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּרֶא דְּלִילָה כִּי הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת כׇּל לִבּוֹ״. דִּילְדְּלָה אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו — דְּאִיסְתַּלַּק שְׁכִינָה מִינֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע כִּי ה׳ סָר מֵעָלָיו״. ״וַתֵּרֶא דְּלִילָה כִּי הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת כׇּל לִבּוֹ״. מְנָא יָדְעָה? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין אָמַר רַב: נִיכָּרִין דִּבְרֵי אֱמֶת. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: יָדְעָה בּוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק דְּלָא מַפֵּיק שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה. כֵּיוָן דַּאֲמַר ״נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי״, אֲמַרָה: הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר. ״וַיְהִי כִּי הֵצִיקָה לּוֹ בִדְבָרֶיהָ כׇּל הַיָּמִים וַתְּאַלְצֵהוּ״. מַאי ״וַתְּאַלְצֵהוּ״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: בִּשְׁעַת גְּמַר בִּיאָה נִשְׁמְטָה מִתַּחְתָּיו. ״וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמְרִי נָא וְאַל תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר וְאַל תֹּאכְלִי כׇּל טָמֵא״. מַאי ״כׇּל טָמֵא״? וְתוּ: עַד הַשְׁתָּא דְּבָרִים טְמֵאִים קָאָכְלָה?! אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים בְּנָזִיר. ״וַיִּבְקַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַמַּכְתֵּשׁ אֲשֶׁר בַּלֶּחִי״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הוּא אִיוָּה לְדָבָר טָמֵא — לְפִיכָךְ נִתְלוּ חַיָּיו בְּדָבָר טָמֵא. ״וַתָּחֵל רוּחַ ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חָלְתָה נְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״יְהִי דָן נָחָשׁ עֲלֵי דֶרֶךְ״. ״לְפַעֲמוֹ בְּמַחֲנֵה דָן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּבֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁכִינָה מְקַשְׁקֶשֶׁת לְפָנָיו כְּזוֹג. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״לְפַעֲמוֹ בְּמַחֲנֵה דָן״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״פַּעֲמֹן וְרִמֹּן״. ״בֵּין צׇרְעָה וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאוֹל״, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: צׇרְעָה וְאֶשְׁתָּאוֹל שְׁנֵי הָרִים גְּדוֹלִים הָיוּ, וַעֲקָרָן שִׁמְשׁוֹן וּטְחָנָן זֶה בָּזֶה. ״וְהוּא יָחֵל לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל״, אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הוּחַל שְׁבוּעָתוֹ שֶׁל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם תִּשְׁקֹר לִי וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי״. ״וַיִּגְדַּל הַנַּעַר וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ ה׳״. בַּמֶּה בֵּרְכוֹ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, שֶׁבֵּרְכוֹ בְּאַמָּתוֹ: אַמָּתוֹ כִּבְנֵי אָדָם, וְזַרְעוֹ כְּנַחַל שׁוֹטֵף. ״וַיִּקְרָא שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל ה׳ וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים זׇכְרֵנִי נָא וְחַזְּקֵנִי נָא אַךְ הַפַּעַם הַזֶּה וְאִנָּקְמָה נְקַם אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי עֵינַי מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים״. אָמַר רַב: אָמַר שִׁמְשׁוֹן לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, זְכוֹר לִי עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה שֶׁשָּׁפַטְתִּי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם הַעֲבֵר לִי מַקֵּל מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. ״וַיֵּלֶךְ שִׁמְשׁוֹן וַיִּלְכֹּד שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שׁוּעָלִים״. מַאי שְׁנָא שׁוּעָלִים? אָמַר רַבִּי אַיְּבוּ בַּר נַגְדִּי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: אָמַר שִׁמְשׁוֹן, יָבֹא מִי שֶׁחוֹזֵר לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְיִפָּרַע מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים שֶׁחָזְרוּ בִּשְׁבוּעָתָן. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָסִיד: בֵּין כְּתֵיפָיו שֶׁל שִׁמְשׁוֹן שִׁשִּׁים אַמָּה הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁכַּב שִׁמְשׁוֹן עַד חֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּקׇם בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיֶּאֱחֹז בְּדַלְתוֹת שַׁעַר הָעִיר וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת וַיִּסָּעֵם עִם הַבְּרִיחַ וַיָּשֶׂם עַל כְּתֵיפָיו״, וּגְמִירִי דְּאֵין דַּלְתוֹת עַזָּה פְּחוּתוֹת מִשִּׁשִּׁים אַמָּה. ״וַיְהִי טוֹחֵן בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין טְחִינָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן עֲבֵירָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״תִּטְחַן לְאַחֵר אִשְׁתִּי״. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הֵבִיא לוֹ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לְבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְעַבֵּר הֵימֶנּוּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: קַמֵּי דְּשָׁתֵי חַמְרָא — חַמְרָא, קַמֵּי רָפוֹקָא (גְּרִידְיָא — דּוּבְלָא). וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְזַנֶּה — אִשְׁתּוֹ (מְזַנֶּנֶת) [מְזַנָּה] עָלָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם נִפְתָּה לִבִּי עַל אִשָּׁה וְעַל פֶּתַח רֵעִי אָרָבְתִּי״, וּכְתִיב: ״תִּטְחַן לְאַחֵר אִשְׁתִּי וְעָלֶיהָ יִכְרְעוּן אֲחֵרִין״, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִיהוּ בֵּי קָארֵי, וְאִיתְּתֵיהּ בֵּי בוּצִינֵי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁמְשׁוֹן דָּן אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דָּן יָדִין עַמּוֹ כְּאַחַד וְגוֹ׳״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁמְשׁוֹן עַל שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי שֶׁמֶשׁ וּמָגֵן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים וְגוֹ׳״. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לֹא יִמָּחֶה! אֶלָּא: מֵעֵין שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵגֵין עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ — אַף שִׁמְשׁוֹן מֵגֵין בְּדוֹרוֹ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּלְעָם חִיגֵּר בְּרַגְלוֹ אַחַת הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיֵּלֶךְ שֶׁפִי״. שִׁמְשׁוֹן חִיגֵּר בִּשְׁתֵּי רַגְלָיו הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁפִיפֹן עֲלֵי אֹרַח״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta 3:15): Samson rebelled with his eyes, as it is stated: “Then his father and his mother said to him: Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you go out to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said to his father: Get her for me; for she is pleasant in my eyes” (Judges 14:3). Therefore, the Philistines gouged out his eyes, as it is stated: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). The Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it written: “But his father and his mother knew not that it was from the Lord; as he sought a subterfuge against the Philistines” (Judges 14:4), indicating that Samson’s searching for a Philistine wife was due to a Divine mission? The Gemara answers: Although God did plan the punishment of the Philistines, in any event when he went, he followed his inclination and did not act for the sake of Heaven. It is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (3:15): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: His initial wrongdoing was in Gaza, and therefore he was smitten in Gaza. The Gemara explains: His initial wrongdoing was in Gaza, as it is written: “And Samson went to Gaza, and saw there a harlot, and went in unto her” (Judges 16:1). Therefore, he was smitten in Gaza, as it is written: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes; and they brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison-house” (Judges 16:21). The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written earlier: “And Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines” (Judges 14:1), indicating that his initial wrongdoing was in Timnah? The Gemara answers: In any event, his initial wrongdoing was in Gaza, for at least he had married the woman in Timnah; in Gaza, Samson never wed the woman but only engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The Gemara continues its discussion of Samson. The verse states: “And it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah” (Judges 16:4). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Even if she had not been called by the name Delilah, it would have been fitting that she be called Delilah, for she weakened [dildela] his strength, she weakened his heart, and she weakened his deeds, thereby decreasing his merits. The Gemara explains: She weakened his strength, as it is written: “And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man and had the seven locks of his head shaved off; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him” (Judges 16:19). She weakened his heart, as it is written: “And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Philistines, saying: Come up this once, for he has told me all his heart” (Judges 16:18). She weakened his deeds, thereby decreasing his merits, as the Divine Presence left him, as it is written: “And she said: The Philistines are upon you, Samson. And he awoke out of his sleep, and said: I will go out as at other times, and shake myself. But he knew not that the Lord was departed from him” (Judges 16:20). The verse states: “And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart” (Judges 16:18). The Gemara asks: From where did she know that this time he had told her the truth about the source of his strength, as he had lied about it previously? Rabbi Ḥanin says that Rav says: Words of truth are recognizable, and she felt that this time he was telling the truth. Abaye says differently: She knew about Samson being a righteous individual, that he would not express the name of Heaven in vain. Once he said: “And he told her all his heart, and said to her: There has not come a razor upon my head; for I have been a nazirite unto God from my mother’s womb” (Judges 16:17), she said: Now he is certainly saying the truth. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, that his soul was vexed unto death” (Judges 16:16). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “and urged him”? How did she do so? Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: At the moment immediately before his completion of the act of intercourse, she slipped away from beneath him. By doing this, she urged him to reveal his secret. When the angel spoke to Samson’s mother, he said: “Now therefore beware, I pray of you, and drink no wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing” (Judges 13:4). The Gemara asks, what is the meaning of “any unclean thing”? That term usually means non-kosher foods, but obviously she would not eat them anyway. And what’s more, until now was she eating unclean things, that she should have to be warned not to continue doing so? Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: The angel was not referring to foods that are actually unclean, but rather items that are forbidden to a nazirite. After Samson smote one thousand Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey, he called the place Lehi, and God miraculously granted him to drink, as he was dying of thirst. The verse states: “But God cleaved the hollow place that is in Lehi, and out of there came water; and when he had drunk, his spirit came back, and he revived” (Judges 15:19). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: He desired something unclean, as he was driven by lust to Philistine women. Therefore, the saving of his life was dependent on something unclean, the jawbone of a donkey. The verse states with regard to Samson: “And the spirit of the Lord began [vataḥel] to move him in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol” (Judges 13:25). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The prophecy of Jacob our forefather concerning the tribe of Dan took effect [ḥaleta] through Samson, a member of the tribe of Dan, as it is written: “Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a horned snake in the path, that bites the horse’s heels, so that his rider falls backward” (Genesis 49:17). The verse continues: “To move him [lefa’amo] in Mahaneh Dan.” Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami says: This teaches that the Divine Presence jangled before him, inspiring him, like a bell [zog], as it is written here: “To move him [lefa’amo] in Mahaneh Dan,” and it is written there with regard to the clothing of the High Priest: “A bell [pa’amon] and a pomegranate” (Exodus 39:26). The verse concludes: “Between Zorah and Eshtaol.” Rabbi Asi says: Zorah and Eshtaol were two large mountains, and Samson uprooted them and ground them one against the other. Samson’s parents were told: “For behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come upon his head; for the child shall be a nazirite unto God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (Judges 13:5). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Samson’s parents were being told that the oath of Abimelech, king of the Philistines, was negated, as it is written that Abimelech said to our forefather Abraham: “Now therefore swear unto me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto you, you shall do to me, and to the land wherein you have sojourned” (Genesis 21:23). The oath of the descendants of Abraham was no longer binding since the Philistines broke their oath by subjugating the Jewish people. The verse states: “And the woman bore a son, and called his name Samson; and the child grew, and the Lord blessed him” (Judges 13:24). The Gemara asks: With what did He bless him? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It means that He blessed him with regard to his penis, that despite his youth his penis should function like that of physically mature men, and that his seed should be like an overflowing river. Prior to Samson’s death, the verse states: “And Samson called unto the Lord, and said: Lord God, remember me, I pray to You, and strengthen me, I pray to You, only this once, O God, that I may be this once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes” (Judges 16:28). Rav said that Samson said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, remember on my behalf the twenty-two years that I judged the Jewish people without receiving any reward, and I did not even say to any one of them: Move a stick for me from one place to another place. The verse states earlier: “And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned tail to tail, and put a torch in the midst between every two tails” (Judges 15:4). The Gemara asks: What is different about foxes than any other animal, that he chose them for this purpose? Rabbi Aivu bar Nagdi says that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Samson said: Let the animal that goes in reverse when it tries to escape, i.e., the fox, come and exact punishment from the Philistines, who reneged on their oath that Abimelech swore to Abraham. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon the Pious said: The width between the shoulders of Samson was sixty cubits, as it is stated: “And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and grabbed hold of the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and plucked them up, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron” (Judges 16:3). The verse indicates that the width of the gate of the city of Gaza was equal to the width of Samson’s shoulders, and it is learned as a tradition that doors of the gate of Gaza were no less than sixty cubits wide. With regard to Samson’s capture, the verse states: “And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put out his eyes; and they brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison-house” (Judges 16:21). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Grinding is nothing other than a language of a transgression of sexual intercourse, and so the verse says: “Then let my wife grind unto another man” (Job 31:10). This teaches that each and every Philistine man brought his wife to the prison in order that she should be impregnated by Samson. Rav Pappa said: This is an example of the folk saying that people say: Before a wine drinker, bring wine; before one who digs in the ground, bring figs. So too, Samson, who married Philistine women, was brought more Philistine women while in prison. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who commits adultery, his wife commits adultery against him, as it is stated: “If my heart has been enticed unto a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door” (Job 31:9), and it is written: “Then let my wife grind unto another man and may strangers kneel over her” (Job 31:10). And this explains the folk saying that people say: He is found among the pumpkins [karei] and his wife among the zucchinis [butzinei], which are similar types of vegetables. In other words, she acts the same way that he does. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Samson judged the Jewish people as their Father in Heaven does, with complete justice, as it is stated: “Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel” (Genesis 49:16), which is interpreted to mean that Samson, from the tribe of Dan, judges his people just as God, Who is “One.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Samson [Shimshon] is called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “For the Lord God is a sun [shemesh] and a shield” (Psalms 84:12). The Gemara comments: If that is so, then his name should not be erased just like other sanctified names are not erased. Rather, he is not called by the name of God but his name is akin to the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, protects the entire world, so too Samson, in his generation, protected all the Jewish people. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Balaam was lame in one of his legs, as it is stated with regard to him: “And he went, limping [shefi]” (Numbers 23:3). Samson was lame in both of his two legs, as it is stated that when Jacob mentioned the tribe of Dan in the prophecy that pertained to Samson, he referred to him as: “Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a horned snake [shefifon] in the path” (Genesis 49:17), which is double shefi, i.e., doubly lame.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּלְעָם חִיגֵּר בְּרַגְלוֹ אַחַת הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיֵּלֶךְ שֶׁפִי״. שִׁמְשׁוֹן חִיגֵּר בִּשְׁתֵּי רַגְלָיו הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁפִיפֹן עֲלֵי אֹרַח״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה נִבְרְאוּ מֵעֵין דּוּגְמָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה, וְכוּלָּן לָקוּ בָּהֶן. שִׁמְשׁוֹן בְּכֹחוֹ, שָׁאוּל בְּצַוָּארוֹ, אַבְשָׁלוֹם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, צִדְקִיָּה בְּעֵינָיו, אָסָא בְּרַגְלָיו. שִׁמְשׁוֹן בְּכֹחוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּסַר כֹּחוֹ מֵעָלָיו״. שָׁאוּל בְּצַוָּארוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ״. אַבְשָׁלוֹם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, כִּדְבָעֵינַן לְמֵימַר קַמַּן. צִדְקִיָּה בְּעֵינָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת עֵינֵי צִדְקִיָּהוּ עִוֵּר״. אָסָא בְּרַגְלָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק לְעֵת זִקְנָתוֹ חָלָה אֶת רַגְלָיו״, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שֶׁאֲחָזַתּוּ פָּדַגְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרַב נַחְמָן: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי פָּדַגְרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַחַט בִּבְשַׂר הַחַי. מְנָא יָדַע? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מֵיחַשׁ הֲוָה חָשׁ בֵּיהּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מֵרַבֵּיהּ שְׁמַע לֵיהּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״סוֹד ה׳ לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם״. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ אָסָא — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה אַנְגַּרְיָא בְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַמֶּלֶךְ אָסָא הִשְׁמִיעַ אֶת כׇּל יְהוּדָה אֵין נָקִי״. מַאי ״אֵין נָקִי״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ חָתָן מֵחֶדְרוֹ וְכַלָּה מֵחוּפָּתָהּ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Five individuals were created with a characteristic that is akin to a representation of the One on High, and they were all stricken by that characteristic. Samson was glorified in his strength, Saul in his neck (see I Samuel 9:2), Absalom in his hair, Zedekiah in his eyes, and Asa in his feet. The Gemara clarifies: Samson was stricken by his strength, which led to his demise, as it is written: “And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man and had the seven locks of his head shaved off; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him” (Judges 16:19). Saul was smitten in his neck, as it is written: “Then said Saul to his armor-bearer: Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make a mock of me. But his armor-bearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore, Saul took his sword and fell upon it” (I Samuel 31:4); he fell with his neck upon the sword. Absalom was stricken in his hair, as we will state later. Zedekiah was stricken in his eyes, as it is written: “And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon” (II Kings 25:7). Asa was stricken in his feet, as it is written: “Now the rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? But in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet” (I Kings 15:23). And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This indicates that gout [padagra] grabbed hold of him. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Naḥman: What are the circumstances of gout? What pain does it involve? He said to him: It feels like a needle inserted into living flesh. The Gemara asks: From where did he know this? The Gemara answers: Some say that he himself suffered from this condition, and some say that he heard it from his teacher, and some say that he knew it through divine inspiration, as it stated: “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and His covenant, to make them know it” (Psalms 25:14). Rava taught: For what reason was Asa punished in his feet? Because he made Torah scholars perform forced labor [angarya], as it is stated: “Then King Asa made a proclamation unto all Judah; none was exempted; and they carried away the stones of Ramah and the timber thereof, with which Baasa had built, and King Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah” (I Kings 15:22). The superfluous expression “unto all” indicates that the proclamation was issued to everyone, including Torah scholars. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the next phrase in the verse: “None was exempted [ein naki]”? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This includes even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy, as the verse states with regard to a bridegroom: “He shall be free [naki] for his house one year” (Deuteronomy 24:5).
כְּתִיב: ״וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשׁוֹן תִּמְנָתָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה חָמִיךְ עֹלֶה תִמְנָתָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שִׁמְשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּתְגַּנָּה בָּהּ — כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ יְרִידָה. יְהוּדָה שֶׁנִּתְעַלָּה בָּהּ — כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ עֲלִיָּה. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: שְׁתֵּי תִּמְנָאוֹת הָיוּ, חֲדָא בִּירִידָה, וַחֲדָא בַּעֲלִיָּה. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: חֲדָא תִּמְנָה הֲוַאי, דְּאָתֵי מֵהַאי גִּיסָא — יְרִידָה, וּדְאָתֵי מֵהַאי גִּיסָא — עֲלִיָּה. כְּגוֹן וַרְדּוֹנְיָא וּבֵי בָארֵי וְשׁוּקָא דְנַרֶשׁ. ״וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּפֶתַח עֵינַיִם״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָלְכָה וְיָשְׁבָה לָהּ בְּפִתְחוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, מָקוֹם שֶׁכׇּל עֵינַיִם צוֹפוֹת לִרְאוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי חָנִין אָמַר רַב: מָקוֹם הוּא שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ עֵינַיִם, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״תַּפּוּחַ וְהָעֵינָם״. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: שֶׁנָּתְנָה עֵינַיִם לִדְבָרֶיהָ. כְּשֶׁתְּבָעָהּ אָמַר לָהּ: שֶׁמָּא נׇכְרִית אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: גִּיּוֹרֶת אֲנִי. שֶׁמָּא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: פְּנוּיָה אֲנִי. שֶׁמָּא קִיבֵּל בִּךְ אָבִיךָ קִידּוּשִׁין? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: יְתוֹמָה אֲנִי. שֶׁמָּא טְמֵאָה אַתְּ? אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: טְהוֹרָה אֲנִי. ״וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע״, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה פַּרְדֵּס, וְנָטַע בּוֹ כׇּל מִינֵי מְגָדִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, חַד אָמַר: פַּרְדֵּס, וְחַד אָמַר: פּוּנְדָּק. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְדֵּס, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּטַּע״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פּוּנְדָּק, מַאי ״וַיִּטַּע״? כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטַּע אׇהֳלֵי אַפַּדְנוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. ״וַיִּקְרָא שָׁם בְּשֵׁם ה׳ אֵל עוֹלָם״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״וַיִּקְרָא״, אֶלָּא ״וַיַּקְרִיא״. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִקְרִיא אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ לִשְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּפֶה כׇּל עוֹבֵר וָשָׁב. כֵּיצַד? לְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ, עָמְדוּ לְבָרְכוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶם: וְכִי מִשֶּׁלִּי אֲכַלְתֶּם? מִשֶּׁל אֱלֹהֵי עוֹלָם אֲכַלְתֶּם! הוֹדוּ וְשַׁבְּחוּ וּבָרְכוּ לְמִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. ״וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה כִּי כִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ״. מִשּׁוּם דְּכִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ, חַשְּׁבַהּ לְזוֹנָה?! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁכִּסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל כַּלָּה שֶׁהִיא צְנוּעָה בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ — זוֹכָה וְיוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים. מְנָלַן — מִתָּמָר. נְבִיאִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ״. מְלָכִים — מִדָּוִד. וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: דָּבָר זֶה מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ: אָמוֹץ וַאֲמַצְיָה — אַחִים הֲווֹ. ״הִיא מוּצֵאת״. ״הִיא מִיתּוֹצֵאת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ סִימָנֶיהָ בָּא סַמָּאֵל וְרִיחֲקָן, בָּא גַּבְרִיאֵל וְקֵירְבָן. הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לִמְנַצֵּחַ עַל יוֹנַת אֵלֶם רְחוֹקִים לְדָוִד מִכְתָּם״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנִּתְרַחֲקוּ סִימָנֶיהָ נַעֲשֵׂית כְּיוֹנָה אִילֶּמֶת. ״לְדָוִד מִכְתָּם״: שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה דָּוִד, שֶׁהָיָה מָךְ וְתָם לַכֹּל. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מִכְתָּם״ — שֶׁהָיְתָה מַכָּתוֹ תַּמָּה, שֶׁנּוֹלַד כְּשֶׁהוּא מָהוּל. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״מִכְתָּם״ — כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּקַטְנוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, כָּךְ בִּגְדוּלָּתוֹ. ״וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה״. וְתֵימָא לֵיהּ מֵימָר! אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: נוֹחַ לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיַּפִּיל עַצְמוֹ לְתוֹךְ כִּבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ, וְאַל יַלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים. מְנָלַן — מִתָּמָר. ״הַכֶּר נָא״. אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּ״הַכֶּר״ בִּישֵּׂר לְאָבִיו — בְּ״הַכֶּר״ בִּישְּׂרוּהוּ. בְּ״הַכֶּר״ בִּישֵּׂר: ״הַכֶּר נָא הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִיא״. בְּ״הַכֶּר״ בִּישְּׂרוּהוּ: ״הַכֶּר נָא לְמִי״. ״נָא״. אֵין ״נָא״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִמְּךָ, הַכֵּר פְּנֵי בּוֹרַאֲךָ וְאַל תַּעֲלִים עֵינֶיךָ מִמֶּנִּי. ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״. הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: יוֹסֵף שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בַּסֵּתֶר — זָכָה וְהוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ אוֹת אַחַת מִשְּׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ״. יְהוּדָה שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — זָכָה וְנִקְרָא כּוּלּוֹ עַל שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹדָה וְאָמַר ״צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אַתָּה הִצַּלְתָּ תָּמָר וּשְׁנֵי בָּנֶיהָ מִן הָאוּר — חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי מַצִּיל בִּזְכוּתְךָ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִבָּנֶיךָ מִן הָאוּר. מַאן נִינְהוּ — חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה. ״צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״. מְנָא יָדַע? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מִמֶּנִּי יָצְאוּ כְּבוּשִׁים. ״וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּה״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל סָבָא חֲמוּהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיְּדָעָהּ — שׁוּב לֹא פָּסַק מִמֶּנָּה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״קוֹל גָּדוֹל וְלֹא יָסָף״.
§ It is written with regard to Samson: “And Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah of the daughters of the Philistines” (Judges 14:1), and it is written in the Torah passage concerning the incident of Judah and Tamar: “And it was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to sheer his sheep” (Genesis 38:13). The verses contain an apparent contradiction as to whether Timnah was a place to which one must descend or a place to which one must ascend. Rabbi Elazar says: These terms do not refer to the manner of traveling to Timnah but are used figuratively. Concerning Samson, who was disgraced there in Timnah, the term indicating descent is written with regard to his journey. Concerning Judah, who was elevated there, the term indicating ascent is written with regard to his journey. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says differently: There were two cities named Timnah, one was reached by descent into a valley, and one was reached by ascent. Rav Pappa said differently: There was one Timnah, and it was located on the slope of a mountain. One who came from this side reached it by descent, and one who came from that side reached it by ascent. The Gemara presents examples of such cities: For example: Vardonia, and Bei Varei, and the market of Neresh. The verse states with regard to Tamar: “And she put off from her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the entrance of Enaim [befetaḥ einayim], which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she was not given unto him to wife” (Genesis 38:14). The amora’im dispute the meaning of the word einayim. Rabbi Alexandri says: This teaches that she went and she sat at the entrance of the home of Abraham our forefather, a place that all eyes hope to see it, as she was certain that Judah would pass there. Rabbi Ḥanin says that Rav says: It is a place called Enaim, and similarly the verse states in the list of cities in Eretz Yisrael in the portion of Judah: “Tappuah and Enam” (Joshua 15:34). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: She provided eyes [einayim] for her statements, i.e., with her words she provided an opening [petaḥ] for Judah to solicit her. When Judah solicited her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, he first attempted to verify her status and said to her: Are you perhaps are a gentile? She said to him: I am a convert. He asked: Perhaps you are a married woman? She said to him: I am an unmarried woman. He asked: Perhaps your father accepted betrothal for you and you are unaware of it? She said to him: I am an orphan. He asked: Maybe you are impure? She said to him: I am pure. The Gemara discusses Abraham’s house: It is written: “And he planted an eshel in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God” (Genesis 21:33). Reish Lakish says: This teaches that Abraham made an orchard and planted in it all kinds of sweet things. The tanna’im Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree as to the meaning of the word “eshel.” One said that it means an orchard [pardes], and one said that it means an inn [pundak]. The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the one who said that it means an orchard, this is what is written: “And he planted,” and this is suitable language for an orchard. But according to the one who said that he opened an inn, what is the meaning of the phrase “and he planted”? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And he shall plant [vayitta] the tents of his palace between the seas and the beauteous holy mountain; and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him” (Daniel 11:45), indicating that the word vayitta, and he planted, is also used to indicate pitching tents. The verse there states: “And he planted an eshel in Beersheba, and called there [vayyikra] on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God” (Genesis 21:33). Reish Lakish said: Do not read this word literally as “vayyikra,” and he called, but rather as vayyakri, and he caused others to call. This teaches that Abraham our forefather caused the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to be called out in the mouth of all passersby. How so? After the guests of Abraham ate and drank, they arose to bless him. He said to them: But did you eat from what is mine? Rather, you ate from the food of the God of the world. Therefore, you should thank and praise and bless the One Who spoke and the world was created. In this way, Abraham caused everyone to call out to God. The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident of Judah and Tamar. It is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). The Gemara asks: Because she had covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? Prostitutes usually uncover their faces in order to attract men. Rabbi Elazar says: The verse means that Tamar covered her face in the home of her father-in-law, Judah. Therefore, he did not recognize her when her face was uncovered. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Any daughter-in-law who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar. Prophets emerged from her, as it is written: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). Kings emerged from her, as seen from David. And Rabbi Levi says: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. This indi-cates that Isaiah was also from the house of David and therefore a descendant of Tamar. The verse describes Tamar’s court hearing: “When she was brought forth [mutzet], she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: When she was mitutzet. The word mutzet also carries the implication of being found. What then, is taught by the use of that term? Rabbi Elazar says: After her signs, which she was using to prove that she was impregnated by Judah, were brought out, the evil angel Samael came and distanced them from each other in an attempt to prevent Judah’s admission and Tamar’s survival, which would enable the birth of King David. The angel Gabriel then came and moved the signs closer again. Therefore, the word mutzet is used, as it alludes to the signs being found again. The Gemara comments: This is as it is written: “For the leader, upon yonat eilem reḥokim, a psalm [mikhtam] of David” (Psalms 56:1). Rabbi Yoḥanan says the verse means: From the moment that her signs were distanced [reḥokim], she became like a mute dove [yona illemet]. And the phrase “a psalm [mikhtam] of David” means: The one from whom David emerged, as he was modest [makh] and flawless [tam] with everyone. Alternatively, mikhtam indicates that makkato, the place on his body that would have required wounding [makka], was complete [tama], i.e., that David was born circumcised. Alternatively, mikhtam indicates that just as in his youth David made himself small in front of one who was greater than him in order to learn Torah from that person, so too, when he became great and was crowned king, he still behaved in this manner, so that his modesty, makh, was complete, tam, all of his life. The verse concerning Tamar then states: “She sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: And let her say to him explicitly that she was impregnated by him. Rav Zutra bar Tuviyya says that Rav says, and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says, and some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more amenable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnace if faced with the choice of publicly embarrassing another or remaining silent even if it leads to being burned, and not humiliate another in public. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as she was prepared to be burned if Judah did not confess, rather than humiliate him in public. The verse continues: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff” (Genesis 38:25). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: With use of the word discern Judah informed his father that Joseph was lost, and also with use of the word discern they informed Judah about the signs. The Gemara explains: With the word discern he informed Jacob his father when he brought him the coat of Joseph and said to his father: “And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said: This have we found. Discern now whether it is your son’s coat or not” (Genesis 37:32). With the word discern they informed him: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these.” It states: “Discern, please [na].” The word na is nothing other than a language of request. The Gemara explains: She said to him: I request of you: Discern the image of your Creator in every person, and do not avert your eyes from me. The verse states: “And Judah acknowledged them, and said: She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son” (Genesis 38:26). This is the same as Rav Ḥanin bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in private by not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar, merited that one letter from the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was added to his name, as it is written: “He appointed it in Joseph [bihosef ] for a testimony in his name, when He went forth against the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6). In this verse the name Joseph is written with an additional letter heh, found in the ineffable name of God. He continues: Judah, who sanctified the name of Heaven in public, merited that his entire name is called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for all the letters of the ineffable name of God are included within the name of Judah, with the addition of the letter dalet. When he confessed and said: “She is more righteous than I,” a Divine Voice went forth and said: You saved Tamar and her two children in her womb from being burned by the fire. By your life, i.e., in your merit, I will save three of your children from the fire. And who are they? Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (see Daniel, chapter 3). Judah said: “She is more righteous than I [mimmenni].” The word “mimmenni” can also be understood as “from me,” with Judah thereby admitting that he is the father. The Gemara asks: From where did he know that it was in fact from him that Tamar was pregnant? The Gemara answers: A Divine Voice went forth and said: From Me these hidden matters emerged, and this woman will be the mother of royalty, which requires that Judah be the father. The same verse continues: “And he knew her [leda’atah] again no more [velo yasaf ],” seemingly indicating that Judah did not engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar again. Shmuel the Elder, father-in-law of Rav Shmuel bar Ami, says in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Ami: The verse actually means that once he knew of her that her intentions were for the sake of Heaven, he did not desist from engaging in sexual intercourse with her again, as it is written here: “Velo yasaf od leda’atah,” and it is written there at the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice and it went on no more [velo yasaf ]” (Deuteronomy 5:18), which is interpreted to mean: A great voice that did not cease.
אַבְשָׁלוֹם נִתְגָּאָה בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַבְשָׁלוֹם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ מָרַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּכְאַבְשָׁלוֹם לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ יָפֶה וְגוֹ׳. וּבְגַלְּחוֹ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְהָיָה מִקֵּץ יָמִים לַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר יְגַלֵּחַ כִּי כָבֵד עָלָיו וְגִלְּחוֹ וְשָׁקַל אֶת שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ מָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים בְּאֶבֶן הַמֶּלֶךְ״. תָּנָא: אֶבֶן שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא וְאַנְשֵׁי צִיפּוֹרִי שׁוֹקְלִים בָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ נִתְלָה בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְרָא אַבְשָׁלוֹם לִפְנֵי עַבְדֵי דָוִד וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם רֹכֵב עַל הַפֶּרֶד וַיָּבֹא הַפֶּרֶד תַּחַת שׂוֹבֶךְ הָאֵלָה הַגְּדוֹלָה וַיֶּחֱזַק רֹאשׁוֹ בָאֵלָה וַיֻּתַּן בֵּין הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבֵין הָאָרֶץ וְהַפֶּרֶד אֲשֶׁר תַּחְתָּיו עָבָר״. שְׁקַל סַפְסִירָא בְּעָא לְמִיפְסְקֵיהּ. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נִבְקַע שְׁאוֹל מִתַּחְתָּיו. ״וַיִּרְגַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיַּעַל עַל עֲלִיַּית הַשַּׁעַר וַיֵּבְךְּ וְכֹה אָמַר בְּלֶכְתּוֹ בְּנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם מִי יִתֵּן מוּתִי אֲנִי תַחְתֶּיךָ אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי. וְהַמֶּלֶךְ לָאַט אֶת פָּנָיו וַיִּזְעַק הַמֶּלֶךְ קוֹל גָּדוֹל בְּנִי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אַבְשָׁלוֹם בְּנִי בְנִי״. הָנֵי תְּמָנְיָא ״בְּנִי״ לְמָה? שִׁבְעָה דְּאַסְּקֵיהּ מִשִּׁבְעָה מְדוֹרֵי גֵיהִנָּם, וְאִידַּךְ, אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּקָרֵיב רֵישֵׁיהּ לְגַבֵּי גוּפֵיהּ, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּאַיְיתֵיהּ לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי. ״וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם לָקַח וַיַּצֶּב לוֹ בְחַיָּיו״. מַאי ״לָקַח״? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁלָּקַח מִקָּח רַע לְעַצְמוֹ. ״אֶת מַצֶּבֶת אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵמֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: בְּעֵצָה עֲמוּקָּה שֶׁל מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנְנִי מֵקִים עָלֶיךָ רָעָה מִבֵּיתֶךָ״. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּשְׁלָחֵהוּ מֵעֵמֶק חֶבְרוֹן״, אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: בְּעֵצָה עֲמוּקָּה שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק שֶׁקָּבוּר בְּחֶבְרוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ״. ״כִּי אָמַר אֵין לִי בֵן״. וְלָא הֲווֹ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּנִים וּבַת אַחַת״! אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ בֵּן הָגוּן לַמַּלְכוּת. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר, גְּמִירִי: כׇּל הַשּׂוֹרֵף תְּבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ בֵּן לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ. וְאִיהוּ קַלְיַיהּ לִדְיוֹאָב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עֲבָדָיו רְאוּ חֶלְקַת יוֹאָב אֶל יָדִי וְלוֹ שָׁם שְׂעֹרִים לְכוּ וְהַצִּיתוּהָ בָאֵשׁ וַיַּצִּיתוּ עַבְדֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת הַחֶלְקָה בָּאֵשׁ״.
§ The mishna teaches: Absalom was excessively proud of his hair, and therefore he was hung by his hair. The Sages taught (Tosefta 3:16): Absalom rebelled and sinned due to his hair, as it is stated: “Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he shaved his head, as it was at every year’s end that he shaved it; because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he shaved it, and he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, by the king’s stone” (II Samuel 14:25–26). What is the king’s stone? The Sages taught: A stone with which the people of Tiberias and the people of Tzippori weigh items. The baraita continues: And since he was proud of his hair, therefore, he was hung by his hair, as it is stated in the verse describing the battle between the forces of David and Absalom: “And Absalom chanced to meet the servants of David. And Absalom was riding upon his mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great terebinth, and his head caught hold of the terebinth, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went on” (II Samuel 18:9). After he was spotted by the opposing troops, Absalom took a sword [safseira] and wanted to cut his hair to save himself. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: At that moment, the gates of the netherworld opened beneath him and he was afraid to fall into it, so he did not cut his hair, and he was killed by the opposing troops. It is written with regard to David’s reaction after he learns of the death of Absalom: “And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went about he said: O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died in your place, O Absalom, my son, my son” (II Samuel 19:1), and a few verses later it adds: “And the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice: O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son” (II Samuel 19:5). The Gemara asks: Why are there these eight mentions of “my son” by David, i.e., to what do they correspond? The Gemara answers: Seven times he said “my son,” by which he raised him up from the seven chambers of Gehenna. And as for the other, eighth, time, some say that David brought the head of Absalom close to Absalom’s body, and some say that with this eighth mention David brought Absalom to the World-to-Come. It is written there: “Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king’s valley; for he said: I have no son to keep my name in remembrance” (II Samuel 18:18). The Gemara asks: What did Absalom take? Reish Lakish says: He engaged in a bad transaction for himself by accepting bad advice for which he was punished. The verse continues: “The pillar, which is in the king’s valley [be’emek hammelekh].” Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: This alludes to the pillar that is in the deep [amukka] counsel of the King [melekh] of the universe, as God had already decreed in the aftermath of the incident with Bathsheba that this would occur. This is as it is written there: “Thus said the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house” (II Samuel 12:11), and this prophecy was fulfilled through Absalom. Similarly, you can say about Joseph, who was sent by his father to inquire as to the well-being of his brothers, where the verse states: “And he sent him from the valley [emek] of Hebron” (Genesis 37:14). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: From the deep [amukka] counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). The journey Joseph took to his brothers set in motion the descent of the Jewish people to Egypt. The Gemara continues its discussion of Absalom. The verse states concerning Absalom: “For he said: I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name; and it is called Absalom’s monument to this day” (II Samuel 18:18). The Gemara asks: And did Absalom not have sons? But isn’t it written: “And to Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter” (II Samuel 14:27)? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: He meant that he did not have a son worthy for royalty. Rav Ḥisda said: It is learned as a tradition: Anyone who burns the produce of another does not leave a son to inherit from him, and he, Absalom, burned the produce of Joab, as it is written: “Therefore he said to his servants: See, Joab’s field is near mine, and he has barley there; go and set it on fire. And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire” (II Samuel 14:30).
וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה מִרְיָם וְכוּ׳. מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם — חֲדָא שַׁעְתָּא, הָכָא — שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא: וּלְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא ״וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטּוֹבָה, דִּבְאוֹתָהּ מִדָּה, וּלְעוֹלָם מִדָּה טוֹבָה מְרוּבָּה מִמִּדַּת פּוּרְעָנוּת. ״וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵרָחוֹק״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: פָּסוּק זֶה כּוּלּוֹ עַל שֵׁם שְׁכִינָה נֶאֱמַר: ״וַתֵּתַצַּב״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא ה׳ וַיִּתְיַצַּב וְגוֹ׳״. ״אֲחוֹתוֹ״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱמֹר לַחׇכְמָה אֲחוֹתִי אָתְּ״. ״מֵרָחוֹק״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵרָחוֹק ה׳ נִרְאָה לִי״. ״לָדַעַת״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֵל דֵּעוֹת ה׳״. ״מָה״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״מַה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ״. ״יֵּעָשֶׂה״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה ה׳ אֱלֹהִים דָּבָר״. ״לוֹ״ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ ה׳ שָׁלוֹם״.
§ The mishna teaches: And the same is so with regard to the reward for good deeds. Miriam waited for the baby Moses for one hour at the shore of the Nile; therefore, the Jewish people delayed their travels in the desert for seven days to wait for her when she was smitten with leprosy. The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? There, Miriam waited one hour, while here, the Jewish people waited for her for seven days. Abaye said: Say this with a slight change: And with regard to the repaying of good it is not so, as a person is not rewarded precisely measure for measure, as the reward may be greater than the good deed. Rava said to him: But the tanna taught in the mishna: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds. Rather, Rava said: This is what the mishna is teaching: And the same is so with regard to the reward of good deeds. It is rewarded with the same measure, i.e., a person is rewarded in the same manner as the good deed, but the measure of good is always greater than the measure of punishment. Therefore, Miriam was rewarded in the same manner as, but in a greater measure than, her deed. With regard to Miriam’s deed the verse states: “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This entire verse is stated in reference to the Divine Presence, i.e., each phrase alludes to the Divine Presence watching over Moses. “And his sister stood”; as it is written: “And the Lord came, and stood” (I Samuel 3:10). “His sister”; as it is written: “Say to wisdom: You are my sister” (Proverbs 7:4). “Afar off”; as it is written: “From afar the Lord appeared to me” (Jeremiah 31:2). “To know”; as it is written: “For the Lord is a God of knowledge” (I Samuel 2:3). “What”; as it is written: “What does the Lord God require of you” (Deuteronomy 10:12). “Would be done”; as it is written: “For the Lord God will do nothing” (Amos 3:7). “To him”; as it is written: “And the Lord said to him: Peace be with you” (Judges 6:23).
״וַיָּקׇם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ וְגוֹ׳״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: חָדָשׁ מַמָּשׁ, וְחַד אָמַר: שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ גְּזֵירוֹתָיו. מַאן דְּאָמַר חָדָשׁ מַמָּשׁ — דִּכְתִיב ״חָדָשׁ״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ גְּזֵירוֹתָיו, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״וַיָּמׇת וַיִּמְלוֹךְ״. ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף״, דַּהֲוָה דָּמֵי כְּמַאן דְּלָא יָדַע לֵיהּ כְּלָל. ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַמּוֹ הִנֵּה עַם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. תָּנָא: הוּא הִתְחִיל בְּעֵצָה תְּחִילָּה לְפִיכָךְ לָקָה תְּחִילָּה. הוּא הִתְחִיל בְּעֵצָה תְּחִילָּה — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל עַמּוֹ״, לְפִיכָךְ לָקָה תְּחִילָּה — כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וּבְכָה וּבְעַמְּךָ וּבְכׇל עֲבָדֶיךָ״. ״הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה לוֹ״. ״לָהֶם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בֹּאוּ וְנֶחְכַּם לְמוֹשִׁיעָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל — בַּמֶּה נְדוּנֵם? נְדוּנֵם בָּאֵשׁ — כְּתִיב: ״כִּי הִנֵּה ה׳ בָּאֵשׁ יָבֹא״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בָאֵשׁ ה׳ נִשְׁפָּט וְגוֹ׳״. בְּחֶרֶב — כְּתִיב: [״וּבְחַרְבּוֹ אֶת כׇּל בָּשָׂר״]. אֶלָּא בּוֹאוּ וּנְדוּנֵם בַּמַּיִם, שֶׁכְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מֵי נֹחַ זֹאת לִי וְגוֹ׳״. וְהֵן אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁעַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אֲבָל עַל אוּמָּה אַחַת הוּא מֵבִיא. אִי נָמֵי: הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אֲבָל הֵן בָּאִין וְנוֹפְלִין בְּתוֹכוֹ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּמִצְרַיִם נָסִים לִקְרָאתוֹ״. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם״ — בִּקְדֵירָה שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוּ, בָּהּ נִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ. מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״זָדוּ״ לִישָּׁנָא דִקְדֵירָה הוּא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּזֶד יַעֲקֹב נָזִיד״. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי סִימַאי: שְׁלֹשָׁה הָיוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ עֵצָה: בִּלְעָם, וְאִיּוֹב, וְיִתְרוֹ. בִּלְעָם שֶׁיָּעַץ — נֶהֱרַג, אִיּוֹב שֶׁשָּׁתַק — נִידּוֹן בְּיִסּוּרִין. יִתְרוֹ שֶׁבָּרַח — זָכוּ מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת סוֹפְרִים יוֹשְׁבֵי יַעְבֵּץ תִּרְעָתִים שִׁמְעָתִים שׂוּכָתִים הֵמָּה הַקִּינִים הַבָּאִים מֵחַמַּת אֲבִי בֵית רֵכָב״, וּכְתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי קֵינִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה וְגוֹ׳״. ״וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ״, ״וְעָלִינוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא: כְּאָדָם שֶׁמְּקַלֵּל אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְתוֹלֶה קִלְלָתוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ. ״וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים״, ״עֲלֵיהֶם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ מַלְבֵּן וְתָלוּ לוֹ לְפַרְעֹה בְּצַוָּארוֹ, וְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם אִיסְטְנִיס אֲנִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּלוּם אִיסְטְנִיס אַתָּה יוֹתֵר מִפַּרְעֹה? ״שָׂרֵי מִסִּים״, דָּבָר שֶׁמֵּשִׂים (לְבֵנִים). ״לְמַעַן עַנּוֹתוֹ בְּסִבְלוֹתָם״, [״עַנּוֹתָם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ]! לְמַעַן עַנּוֹתוֹ לְפַרְעֹה בְּסִבְלוֹתָם דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. ״וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת לְפַרְעֹה״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: שֶׁמְּסַכְּנוֹת אֶת בַּעְלֵיהֶן. וְחַד אָמַר: שֶׁמְּמַסְכְּנוֹת אֶת בַּעְלֵיהֶן, דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּבִנְיָן מִתְמַסְכֵּן. ״אֶת פִּיתוֹם וְאֶת רַעַמְסֵס״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: פִּיתוֹם שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רַעַמְסֵס — שֶׁרִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן מִתְרוֹסֵס. וְחַד אָמַר: רַעַמְסֵס שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ פִּיתוֹם — שֶׁרִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן פִּי תְהוֹם בּוֹלְעוֹ. ״וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אוֹתוֹ כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרוֹץ״. ״כֵּן רַבּוּ וְכֵן פָּרְצוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְבַשַּׂרְתָּן: ״כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרוֹץ״. ״וַיָּקֻצוּ מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ דּוֹמִין בְּעֵינֵיהֶם כְּקוֹצִים. ״וַיַּעֲבִדוּ מִצְרַיִם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּפָרֶךְ״, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: בְּפֶה רַךְ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: בִּפְרִיכָה. ״וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם בַּעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה בְּחֹמֶר וּבִלְבֵנִים וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רָבָא: בַּתְּחִילָּה ״בְּחוֹמֶר וּבִלְבֵנִים״, וּלְבַסּוֹף ״וּבְכׇל עֲבוֹדָה בַּשָּׂדֶה״. ״אֵת כׇּל עֲבֹדָתָם אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ בָהֶם בְּפָרֶךְ״, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: שֶׁהָיוּ מַחְלִיפִין מְלֶאכֶת אֲנָשִׁים לְנָשִׁים וּמְלֶאכֶת נָשִׁים לַאֲנָשִׁים. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָמֵי הָתָם בְּפֶה רַךְ, הָכָא וַדַּאי בִּפְרִיכָה.
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the sojourn of the Jewish people in Egypt. The verse states: “And there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). Rav and Shmuel disagree about the interpretation of this verse. One says that this means he was actually a new king, and one says that this means that his decrees were transformed as if he were a new king. The one who says that he was actually a new king holds that it is because it is written “new.” And the one who says that his decrees were transformed holds that it is because it is not written: “And the previous king of Egypt died and a new king reigned.” This indicates that the same king remained. According to this interpretation, the words: “Who knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), mean that he was like someone who did not know him at all. Although he certainly knew Joseph and his accomplishments, he acted as if he didn’t. The next verse states: “And he said to his people: Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us” (Exodus 1:9). It was taught (Tosefta 4:11): He, Pharaoh, initiated the proposal. Therefore, of his people, he was stricken first. He initiated the proposal, as it is written: “And he said to his people.” Therefore, he was stricken first, as it is written: “And the frogs shall come up both upon you, and upon your people, and upon all your servants” (Exodus 7:29). The next verse states that Pharaoh said: “Come, let us deal wisely with him [lo], lest he multiply, and it come to pass that when there befalls us any war, he will also join our enemies, and fight against us” (Exodus 1:10). The Gemara comments: He should have said in plural: With them [lahem], rather than the singular: “With him.” Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says that Pharaoh was saying: Come, let us deal wisely with regard to the savior of Israel, referring to God. His advisors asked: With what form of death shall we judge and decree upon them? If we shall judge them with fire, perhaps we will be punished measure for measure by fire, as it is written: “For behold, the Lord will come in fire” (Isaiah 66:15), and it is written in the verse that follows it: “For by fire will the Lord contend” (Isaiah 66:16). Similarly, we cannot judge them with the sword, as it is written in the continuation of that verse: “And by His sword with all flesh” (Isaiah 66:16). Rather, let us come and judge them with water, by drowning the Jewish babies. God will not punish us with water, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, already took an oath that He will not bring a flood upon the world, as it is stated: “For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth” (Isaiah 54:9). The Gemara comments: And Pharaoh’s advisors did not know that He will not bring a flood upon all the world, but He may bring destruction by water upon one nation. Alternatively, there is an additional way to punish the Egyptians with water: He does not bring a flood upon them, but they may come and fall into water, and so it says: “And the sea returned to its strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled toward it; and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea” (Exodus 14:27), indicating that the Egyptians fell into the water. And this is what Rabbi Elazar says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, for in that which they conspired [zadu] against them” (Exodus 18:11)? The phrase means: In the pot in which they cooked, they themselves were cooked, as they were punished through drowning, measure for measure, for drowning the Jewish babies. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this word “zadu” is a term meaning a pot? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Jacob simmered a pot [vayyazed Ya’akov nazid]” (Genesis 25:29). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Simai says: Three noteworthy people were consulted by Pharaoh in that counsel where Pharaoh questioned what should be done with the Jewish people. They were Balaam, and Job, and Yitro. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba teaches what occurred to each of them: Balaam, who advised Pharaoh to kill all sons born to the Jewish people, was punished by being killed in the war with Midian (see Numbers 31:8). Job, who was silent and neither advised nor protested, was punished by suffering, as detailed in the eponymous book in the Bible. Yitro, who ran away as a sign of protest, merited that some of his children’s children sat in the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, as it is stated: “And the families of scribes who dwelt at Jabez, Tirathites, Shimeathites, and Sucathites, these were the Kenites who descended from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55). And it is written: “The children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Judges 1:16). This teaches that the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, the father-in-law of Moses, dwelt at Jabez [Yabetz], referring to the place where the Jewish people go for advice [eitza], i.e., the Chamber of Hewn Stone. The verse states: “Come, let us deal wisely with him, lest he multiply, and it come to pass that when there befalls us any war, he will also join our enemies, and fight against us, and get him up out of the land” (Exodus 1:10). The Gemara comments: He should have said: And get us up, as Pharaoh’s fear was that the Jewish people would join the enemies of Egypt and drive Pharaoh and the Egyptians out of Egypt. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: By stating this, Pharaoh is like a person who curses himself but applies his curse to another. The next verse states: “Therefore they did set over him taskmasters in order to afflict him with their burdens” (Exodus 1:11). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: Over them, in the plural. The school of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, taught: This teaches that at first they brought a brick mold and they hung it on the neck of Pharaoh to create the appearance that he was also participating in the labor. And with regard to each and every Jew who said to the Egyptians: I am a delicate person [istenis] and I cannot participate in the labor, they said to him: Are you at all more of a delicate person than Pharaoh, and he is participating. Therefore, the verse states: “They did set over him,” as they first placed the burden on Pharaoh as an artifice to enslave the Jewish people. The term “Taskmasters [sarei missim]” is formed from the term: A matter that compels [shemesim] the manufacture of bricks, as the Jewish people were forced into labor when these taskmasters were assigned to them. The verse continues: “In order to afflict him with their burdens” (Exodus1:11). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: “In order to afflict them,” in the plural. Rather, the intention is, as mentioned previously, in order to afflict Pharaoh, with the result of causing the burdens of the Jewish people. The verse concludes: “And they built for Pharaoh storage cities [miskenot], Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the precise interpretation of the word miskanot. One says that they are called this because they were the type of structures that endanger [mesakenot] their owners, as it is dangerous to work in cities with tall buildings. And one says that they are called this because this is the type of property that impoverishes [memaskenot] their owners, as the Master said: All who engage in construction become poor. The verse states that the names of the cities they built were “Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the precise interpretation of this verse, both assuming that only one city was built, which had primary and secondary names. One says that Pithom was its real name, and why was it called Raamses? It is an appellation indicating that as the buildings were constructed they collapsed [mitroses] one by one and needed to be rebuilt. And one says that Raamses was its real name, and why was it called Pithom? Because the opening of the abyss [pi tehom] swallowed each building they constructed one by one, and it sunk into the ground. The next verse states: “But the more they afflicted him, the more he would multiply and the more he would spread about” (Exodus 1:12). The Gemara comments: It should have stated: The more they multiplied and the more they spread about, in the past tense. Reish Lakish says: Divine inspiration proclaimed to the Egyptians: As long as this nation is afflicted, the more he will multiply and the more he will spread about. As the verse states: “And they became disgusted [vayyakutzu] due to the children of Israel.” The Gemara explains: This teaches that the Jewish people appeared in their eyes like thorns [kotzim]. The next verse states: “And the Egyptians made the children of Israel work with rigor [befarekh]” (Exodus 1:13). Rabbi Elazar says: The word befarekh is a conjugation of the words: With a soft mouth [bifeh rakh], as the Egyptians enticed the Jewish people into slavery, gradually subjugating them until they had lost their freedom completely. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The word befarekh should be understood as: With crushing [bifrikha], as the Egyptians subjugated Israel with backbreaking labor. The next verse states: “And they made their lives bitter through hard service, with mortar and brick, and with every laborious service in the field” (Exodus 1:14). Rava says: The verse mentions specifically mortar and brick and then all forms of labor, as initially the Egyptians had them work with mortar and bricks, and ultimately they subjugated them “and with every laborious service in the field.” The verse concludes: “In all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor” (Exodus 1:14). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The meaning of befarekh is that the Egyptians would exchange the responsibilities of men and women, giving men’s work to women and women’s work to men, requiring everyone to do work to which they were unaccustomed. And even according to the one who says that there, in the previous verse, bifarekh indicates that the Egyptians enslaved the Jews with a soft mouth, here, in this verse, which describes the physical hardship of the labor, the word befarekh certainly means with crushing labor.
דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה זָכוּ — שְׁכִינָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. לֹא זָכוּ — אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתָּן. אָמַר רָבָא: וּדְאִשָּׁה עֲדִיפָא מִדְּאִישׁ, מַאי טַעְמָא — הַאי מְצָרֵף, וְהַאי לָא מְצָרֵף. אָמַר רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עָפָר לְסוֹטָה? זָכְתָה — יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, לֹא זָכְתָה — תַּחְזוֹר לַעֲפָרָהּ. דְּרֵישׁ רָבָא: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, זָכוּ בָּנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת, אֵפֶר פָּרָה וַעֲפַר סוֹטָה. וְהָאִיכָּא נָמֵי עֲפַר כִּיסּוּי הַדָּם! הָתָם הֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה אִיכָּא, הֲנָאָה לֵיכָּא. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ ״אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל״, זָכוּ בָּנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת: חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִלִּין. בִּשְׁלָמָא רְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִלִּין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָאוּ כׇּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה׳ נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ. אֶלָּא חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה תְּכֵלֶת מִכׇּל מִינֵי צִבְעוֹנִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַתְּכֵלֶת דּוֹמֶה לַיָּם, וְיָם דּוֹמֶה לָרָקִיעַ, וְרָקִיעַ דּוֹמֶה לְכִסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״, וּכְתִיב: ״כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא״.
§ Rabbi Akiva taught: If a man [ish] and woman [isha] merit reward through a faithful marriage, the Divine Presence rests between them. The words ish and isha are almost identical; the difference between them is the middle letter yod in ish, and the final letter heh in isha. These two letters can be joined to form the name of God spelled yod, heh. But if due to licentiousness they do not merit reward, the Divine Presence departs, leaving in each word only the letters alef and shin, which spell esh, fire. Therefore, fire consumes them. Rava said: And the fire that consumes the woman is stronger and more immediate than that which consumes the man. What is the reason for this? The letters alef and shin in the word isha are adjacent, joined together, but in the word ish they are not joined, as the letter yod is written between them. Additionally, Rava says: For what reason did the Torah say: Bring dust for the sota? It is because if she merits to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the sota, a child like our Patriarch Abraham will emerge from her, as it is written with regard to Abraham that he said: “I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). But if she does not merit to be proven faithful after drinking the water of the sota, she shall die and return to her dust, the soil from which mankind was formed. And Rava further taught: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham said: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27), his children merited two mitzvot: The ashes of the red heifer (see Numbers, chapter 19) and the dust of the sota. The Gemara asks: But there is also another mitzva involving dust: The dust used for covering the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl (see Leviticus 17:13). The Gemara answers: There, the dust does serve as an accessory to the mitzva of covering the blood, but there is no benefit imparted by it. It occurs after the animal has been slaughtered and does not itself render the meat fit for consumption. Rava further taught: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham said to the king of Sodom: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries. The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries impart benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.
וּמַאי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי גּוֹיִם, דְּלָא מִפְּקִיד דִּינָא עֲלַיְיהוּ. וְיֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים כּוּ׳. זְכוּת דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא זְכוּת דְּתוֹרָה — הָא אֵינָהּ מְצֻוּוֹה וְעוֹשָׂה הִיא! אֶלָּא זְכוּת דְּמִצְוָה. זְכוּת דְּמִצְוָה מִי מַגְּנָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי: ״כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר״, תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב אֶת הַמִּצְוָה בְּנֵר, וְאֶת הַתּוֹרָה בְּאוֹר. אֶת הַמִּצְוָה בְּנֵר, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה נֵר אֵינָהּ מְגִינָּה אֶלָּא לְפִי שָׁעָה — אַף מִצְוָה אֵינָהּ מְגִינָּה אֶלָּא לְפִי שָׁעָה. וְאֶת הַתּוֹרָה בְּאוֹר, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אוֹר מֵגֵין לָעוֹלָם, אַף תּוֹרָה מְגִינָּה לָעוֹלָם. וְאוֹמֵר: ״בְּהִתְהַלֶּכְךָ תַּנְחֶה אֹתְךָ וְגוֹ׳״. ״בְּהִתְהַלֶּכְךָ תַּנְחֶה אֹתְךָ״ — זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. ״בְּשָׁכְבְּךָ תִּשְׁמוֹר עָלֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִיתָה. ״וַהֲקִיצוֹתָ הִיא תְשִׂיחֶךָ״ — לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. מָשָׁל לְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּאִישׁוֹן לַיְלָה וַאֲפֵילָה, וּמִתְיָירֵא מִן הַקּוֹצִים וּמִן הַפְּחָתִים וּמִן הַבַּרְקָנִים, וּמֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּסְטִין, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ. נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲבוּקָה שֶׁל אוּר — נִיצַּל מִן הַקּוֹצִים וּמִן הַפְּחָתִים וּמִן הַבַּרְקָנִים, וַעֲדַיִין מִתְיָירֵא מֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּיסְטִין, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר — נִיצַּל מֵחַיָּה רָעָה וּמִן הַלִּיסְטִין, וַעֲדַיִין אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה דֶּרֶךְ מְהַלֵּךְ. הִגִּיעַ לְפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים — נִיצַּל מִכּוּלָּם. דָּבָר אַחֵר: עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה מִצְוָה, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מַיִם רַבִּים לֹא יוּכְלוּ לְכַבּוֹת אֶת הָאַהֲבָה״. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתוֹפֶל מִי לָא עָסְקִי בְּתוֹרָה? אַמַּאי לָא הֵגֵינָּה עֲלַיְיהוּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תּוֹרָה בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. מִצְוָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם זְכוּת תּוֹרָה, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ מְצֻוּוָה וְעוֹשָׂה נְהִי דִּפַּקּוֹדֵי לָא מִפַּקְּדָא, בְּאַגְרָא דְּמַקְרְיָן וּמַתְנְיָין בְּנַיְיהוּ וְנָטְרָן לְהוּ לְגַבְרַיְיהוּ עַד דְּאָתוּ מִבֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, מִי לָא פָּלְגָאן בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ? מַאי פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְיוֹם מִיתָה. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְיִרְאַת חֵטְא. מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם דְּסָלְקָא לֵיהּ שְׁמַעְתָּתָא אַלִּיבָּא דְהִלְכְתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר: עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה מִצְוָה, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: דַּרְשֵׁיהּ רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי לְהַאי קְרָא כִּי סִינַי, וְאִילְמָלֵא דַּרְשׁוּהּ דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתוֹפֶל הָכִי לָא רְדַפוּ בָּתַר דָּוִד, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵאמֹר אֱלֹהִים עֲזָבוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי דְּרוּשׁ — ״וְלֹא יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְגוֹ׳״, וְהֵן אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁעֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה מִצְוָה, וְאֵין עֲבֵירָה מְכַבָּה תּוֹרָה. מַאי ״בּוֹז יָבוּזוּ לוֹ״? אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא כְּשִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה, וְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה, אֶלָּא כְּהִלֵּל וְשֶׁבְנָא. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: הִלֵּל וְשֶׁבְנָא אַחֵי הֲווֹ. הִלֵּל עֲסַק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁבְנָא עֲבַד עִיסְקָא. לְסוֹף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּא נַעֲרוֹב וְלִיפְלוֹג! יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אִם יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶת כׇּל הוֹן בֵּיתוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ The mishna states: And there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. The Gemara asks: Which merit can delay the punishment of a sota? If we say it is the merit of the Torah that she has studied; but a woman who studies Torah is one who is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. Rather, perhaps it is the merit of a mitzva that she performed. The Gemara asks: Does the merit of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva. And the Torah is associated with light in order to say to you: Just as the light of the sun protects one forever, so too, the Torah one studies protects one forever; and it states in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is referring to when one is in this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is referring to the time of death, when one lies in his grave. “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; this is referring to the time to come after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world. This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking. If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them. Alternatively, the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva one performed, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah one studied, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the baraita that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment. Rav Yosef said that with regard to a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its performance it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination; at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to Torah study, both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment. Rabba objects to this explanation: If that is so, then with regard to Doeg (see I Samuel, chapters 21–22) and Ahithophel (see II Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, did they not engage in the study of Torah? Why did it not protect them from sinning? Rather, Rava said: With regard to Torah study, at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its performance and at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. Ravina said: Actually, the merit that delays the punishment of the sota is the merit of Torah study, and with regard to that which you say, i.e., that she is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. Granted, she is not commanded to study Torah herself; however, in reward for causing their sons to read the Written Torah and to learn the Mishna, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall, don’t they share the reward with their sons and husbands? Therefore, if the sota enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment. With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the crossroads, which provide clarity? Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a Torah scholar and his day of death. Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar who has also acquired fear of sin, as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha, as that is an indication that he is following the right path. The baraita states: Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as it was given on Mount Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: “For my enemies speak concerning me…saying, God has forsaken him; pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him. The Gemara asks: What verse did Doeg and Ahithophel interpret incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you…that He see no licentious matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah. Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).
אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תּוֹרָה — מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּיפְלוּת. תִּיפְלוּת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּאִילּוּ לִמְּדָהּ תִּיפְלוּת. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲנִי חׇכְמָה שָׁכַנְתִּי עׇרְמָה״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה חׇכְמָה בְּאָדָם — נִכְנְסָה עִמּוֹ עַרְמוּמִית. וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״אֲנִי חׇכְמָה״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמַּעֲמִיד עַצְמוֹ עָרוֹם עֲלֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲנִי חׇכְמָה שָׁכַנְתִּי עׇרְמָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַחׇכְמָה מֵאַיִן תִּמָּצֵא״.
§ The mishna states: From here ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity. The Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind to say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her promiscuity? Rather, say: It is considered as if he taught her promiscuity. Rabbi Abbahu says: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement? It is as it is written: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning” (Proverbs 8:12), which indicates that once wisdom enters into a person, cunning enters with it. Rabbi Eliezer fears that the woman will use the cunning she achieves by learning the wisdom of the Torah to engage in promiscuous behavior. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with him, what do they do with this verse: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning [orma]”; how do they interpret it? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, states, interpreting the word “orma” as nakedness rather than cunningness, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who stands naked for them, as it is stated: “I, wisdom, dwell with nakedness [orma]” (Proverbs 8:12). This means that wisdom dwells only in one who is prepared to give away all of his possessions for the sake of Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who considers himself as one who does not exist, as it is stated: “But wisdom, it can be found in nothingness” (Job 28:12).
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְּקַב וְתִיפְלוּת עִמּוֹ, מִתִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת.
§ The mishna states: From here ben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity. The Gemara asks: Could it enter your mind to say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her promiscuity? Rather, say: It is considered as if he taught her promiscuity. Rabbi Abbahu says: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s statement? It is as it is written: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning” (Proverbs 8:12), which indicates that once wisdom enters into a person, cunning enters with it. Rabbi Eliezer fears that the woman will use the cunning she achieves by learning the wisdom of the Torah to engage in promiscuous behavior. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with him, what do they do with this verse: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning [orma]”; how do they interpret it? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse for that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, states, interpreting the word “orma” as nakedness rather than cunningness, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who stands naked for them, as it is stated: “I, wisdom, dwell with nakedness [orma]” (Proverbs 8:12). This means that wisdom dwells only in one who is prepared to give away all of his possessions for the sake of Torah study. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who considers himself as one who does not exist, as it is stated: “But wisdom, it can be found in nothingness” (Job 28:12).
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי רָשָׁע עָרוּם? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה הַמַּטְעִים דְּבָרָיו לַדַּיָּין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אוֹמֵר: זֶה הַנּוֹתֵן דִּינָר לְעָנִי לְהַשְׁלִים לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז — לֹא יִטּוֹל לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. הָיָה לוֹ מָאתַיִם חָסֵר דִּינָר, אֲפִילּוּ אֶלֶף נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כְּאַחַת — הֲרֵי זֶה יִטּוֹל. רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא עֵצָה לִמְכּוֹר בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁקָּדְמוּ וּמָכְרוּ בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין — מַה שֶּׁמָּכְרוּ מָכְרוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא עֵצָה לִמְכּוֹר בִּנְכָסִים כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּתַנְיָא: ״נְכָסַי לְךָ, וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי״, וְיָרַד הָרִאשׁוֹן וּמָכַר וְאָכַל — הַשֵּׁנִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר רִאשׁוֹן. רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זֶה הַמַּכְרִיעַ אֲחֵרִים בְּאוֹרְחוֹתָיו. רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זֶה הַמֵּיקֵל לְעַצְמוֹ וּמַחְמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים. עוּלָּא אָמַר: זֶה שֶׁקָּרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. אִתְּמַר: קָרָא וְשָׁנָה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה עַם הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה כּוּתִי. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מָגוֹשׁ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: רָטֵין מָגוֹשָׁא וְלָא יָדַע מַאי אָמַר, תָּנֵי תַּנָּא וְלָא יָדַע מַאי אָמַר.
The Gemara asks: Who is considered a conniving wicked person? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is one who presents his statement to the judge before the other litigant comes and thereby prejudices the judge in his favor. Rabbi Abbahu says: This is referring to one who gives a dinar to a poor man in order to complete the sum of two hundred dinars for him, so that he will no longer be entitled to receive charity, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 8:8): One who has two hundred dinars may not collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, and the poor man’s tithe, since he is not defined as poor. However, if he has two hundred less one dinar, even if he is given one thousand dinars at once, he may collect. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to male orphans to sell from the small quantity of property left to them by their father, before it is appropriated by the court for the purpose of providing for the daughters, who do not inherit property. This causes the daughters to lose their right to sustenance, because although it is improper to do so, the sale is valid, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to male orphans who preemptively sold the property from a small estate, that which they sold, they sold, and the sons retain the money. Abaye says: A conniving wicked person is one who provides advice to sell property in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: My property is given to you, and after you die, to so-and-so, and the first beneficiary entered the property and sold it and consumed the profits, the second beneficiary repossesses the property from the purchasers, as the property belongs to him after the death of the first beneficiary; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second beneficiary receives only that which the first beneficiary left, since his sale is valid. However, it is not permitted to sell the property ab initio, since the giver intended for the second beneficiary to receive the property. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama says that Rav Sheshet says: A conniving wicked person is one who persuades others with his ways, convincing others to mimic his seemingly righteous behavior, in order to hide his faults. Rabbi Zerika says that Rav Huna says: A conniving wicked person is one who is lenient in the halakha for himself and strict for others. Ulla says: This is one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars in order to learn the reasoning behind the halakhot. Since he believes himself knowledgeable, he issues halakhic rulings, but due to his lack of understanding he rules erroneously and is therefore considered wicked. His cunning is in his public display of knowledge, which misleads others into considering him a true Torah scholar. It was stated: With regard to one who read the Written Torah and learned the Mishna but did not serve Torah scholars, Rabbi Elazar says: This person is an ignoramus. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This person is a boor. Rabbi Yannai says: This person is comparable to a Samaritan, who follows the Written Torah but not the traditions of the Sages. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This person is comparable to a sorcerer [magosh], who uses his knowledge to mislead people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, as people say proverbially: The sorcerer chants and does not know what he is saying; so too, the tanna teaches the Mishna and does not know what he is saying.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית בְּבִרְכוֹתֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵינוֹ מְגַדְּלָן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קוֹרֵא וְשׁוֹנֶה וְלֹא שִׁימֵּשׁ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים — זֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ. קָרָא וְלֹא שָׁנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר, לֹא קָרָא וְלֹא שָׁנָה — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְזָרַעְתִּי אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת בֵּית יְהוּדָה זֶרַע אָדָם וְזֶרַע בְּהֵמָה״. ״יְרָא אֶת ה׳ בְּנִי וָמֶלֶךְ עִם שׁוֹנִים אַל תִּתְעָרָב״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵלּוּ שֶׁשּׁוֹנִים הֲלָכוֹת. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא — שׁוֹנִין בְּחֵטְא, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר אָדָם עֲבֵירָה וְשָׁנָה בָּהּ — הוּתְּרָה לוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. תָּנָא: הַתַּנָּאִים — מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם. מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אָמַר רָבִינָא: שֶׁמּוֹרִין הֲלָכָה מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁנָתָן. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְכִי מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם הֵן? וַהֲלֹא מְיַישְּׁבֵי עוֹלָם הֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלִיכוֹת עוֹלָם לוֹ״! אֶלָּא, שֶׁמּוֹרִין הֲלָכָה מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁנָתָן.
§ The Sages taught: Who is an ignoramus [am ha’aretz]? It is anyone who does not recite Shema in the morning and evening with its blessings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is anyone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: It is anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef said: It is anyone who has sons and does not raise them to study Torah. Aḥerim say: Even if one reads the Written Torah and learns the Mishna but does not serve Torah scholars, he is an ignoramus. If one read the Written Torah but did not learn the Mishna, he is a boor. With regard to one who did not read and did not learn at all, the verse states: “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast” (Jeremiah 31:26). One who has not studied at all is comparable to a beast. The verse states: “My son, fear the Lord and the king; and meddle not with those who are repeating” (Proverbs 24:21). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are individuals who repeatedly learn the halakhot but do not know the reasons behind them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? How else could the verse be understood? The Gemara answers: He states this lest you say that the verse is referring to individuals who repeatedly commit sins, and this is in accordance with the words of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: Once a person committed a transgression and repeated it, in his eyes it became permitted for him. Since the verse could be interpreted in this manner, Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches us that the verse is referring to those who learn without understanding. It was taught in a baraita: The tanna’im, who recite the tannaitic sources by rote, are individuals who erode the world. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: Could it enter your mind that they are individuals who erode the world? Ravina says: This statement is referring to those who issue halakhic rulings based on their knowledge of mishnayot. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua said: Are they individuals who erode the world? Aren’t they settling the world, as it is stated: “His ways [halikhot] are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6)? The Sages read the term halikhot as halakhot, inferring that one who learns halakhot attains eternal life. Rather, this is referring to those who issue halakhic rulings based on their knowledge of mishnayot.
אִשָּׁה פְּרוּשָׁה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּתוּלָה צַלְיָינִית, וְאַלְמָנָה שׁוֹבָבִית, וְקָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְבַלֵּי עוֹלָם. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמַדְנוּ יִרְאַת חֵטְא מִבְּתוּלָה, וְקִיבּוּל שָׂכָר מֵאַלְמָנָה. יִרְאַת חֵטְא מִבְּתוּלָה — דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שַׁמְעַהּ לְהַהִיא בְּתוּלָה דְּנָפְלָה אַאַפַּהּ וְקָאָמְרָה: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּרָאתָ גַּן עֵדֶן וּבָרָאתָ גֵּיהִנָּם, בָּרָאתָ צַדִּיקִים וּבָרָאתָ רְשָׁעִים. יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּשְׁלוּ בִּי בְּנֵי אָדָם. קִיבּוּל שָׂכָר מֵאַלְמָנָה — דְּהָהִיא אַלְמָנָה דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא בְּשִׁיבָבוּתַהּ. כׇּל יוֹמָא הֲוָת אָתְיָא וּמְצַלָּה בֵּי מִדְרְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, לֹא בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּשִׁיבָבוּתִיךְ? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, וְלֹא שְׂכַר פְּסִיעוֹת יֵשׁ לִי? כִּי קָאָמַר, כְּגוֹן יוֹחָנִי בַּת רְטִיבִי. מַאי ״קָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הַמְבַעֵט בְּרַבּוֹתָיו. רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: זֶה תַּלְמִיד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמוֹרֶה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי רַבִּים חֲלָלִים הִפִּילָה וַעֲצוּמִים כׇּל הֲרוּגֶיהָ״. ״כִּי רַבִּים חֲלָלִים הִפִּילָה״ — זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וּמוֹרֶה. ״וַעֲצוּמִים כׇּל הֲרוּגֶיהָ״ — זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְהוֹרָאָה וְאֵינוֹ מוֹרֶה. וְעַד כַּמָּה — עַד אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין. אִינִי? וְהָא רַבָּה אוֹרִי! בְּשָׁוִין.
§ The mishna states that an abstinent woman is among those who erode the world. The Sages taught: A maiden who prays constantly, and a neighborly [shovavit] widow who constantly visits her neighbors, and a child whose months of gestation were not completed, all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: We learned the meaning of fear of sin from a maiden, and the significance of receiving divine reward from a widow. The meaning of fear of sin can be learned from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥanan heard a certain maiden who fell on her face in prayer, and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna. The significance of receiving divine reward can be learned from a widow, as there was a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, and despite this every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her: My daughter, is there not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward for all the steps I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall? The Gemara answers: When it is stated in the baraita that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, for example, to Yoḥani bat Retivi, who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a child whose months of gestation were not completed? Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete Torah scholar who scorns his teachers. Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not yet attained the ability to issue halakhic rulings, and yet he issues rulings and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child. This is as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For she has cast down many wounded; and a mighty host are all her slain” (Proverbs 7:26)? “For she has cast down [hippila] many wounded”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has not yet attained the ability to issue rulings, and yet he issues rulings. “And a mighty host [ve’atzumim] are all her slain”; this is referring to a Torah scholar who has attained the ability to issue rulings, but does not issue rulings and prevents the masses from learning Torah properly. And until when is it considered too premature for a scholar to issue halakhic rulings? It is until forty years. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabba issue rulings, even though he lived for only forty years? The Gemara answers: It is permitted for a scholar who has not studied for so long to issue rulings when his knowledge reaches the level of the foremost scholar in his city and they are equals.
וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שִׁבְעָה פְּרוּשִׁין הֵן: פָּרוּשׁ שִׁיכְמִי, פָּרוּשׁ נִקְפִּי, פָּרוּשׁ קִיזַּאי, פָּרוּשׁ מְדוּכְיָא, פָּרוּשׁ ״מָה חוֹבָתִי וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״, פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה, פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה. פָּרוּשׁ שִׁיכְמִי — זֶה הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה שְׁכֶם. פָּרוּשׁ נִקְפִּי — זֶה הַמְנַקֵּיף אֶת רַגְלָיו. פָּרוּשׁ קִיזַּאי — אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: זֶה הַמַּקִּיז דָּם לַכְּתָלִים. פָּרוּשׁ מְדוּכְיָא — אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דִּמְשַׁפַּע כִּי מְדוּכְיָא. פָּרוּשׁ ״מָה חוֹבָתִי וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״. הָא מְעַלְּיוּתָא הִיא! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מָה חוֹבָתִי תּוּ וְאֶעֱשֶׂנָּה״. פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה, פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא לְתַנָּא: לָא תִּיתְּנֵי פָּרוּשׁ מֵאַהֲבָה פָּרוּשׁ מִיִּרְאָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּמִטַּמְּרָא מִטַּמְּרָא, וּדְמִגַּלְּיָא מִגַּלְּיָא, בֵּי דִינָא רַבָּה לִיתְפְּרַע מֵהָנֵי דְּחָפוּ גּוּנְדֵי. אֲמַר לַהּ יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא לִדְבֵיתֵיהּ: אַל תִּתְיָרְאִי מִן הַפְּרוּשִׁין, וְלֹא מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינָן פְּרוּשִׁין, אֶלָּא מִן הַצְּבוּעִין שֶׁדּוֹמִין לִפְרוּשִׁין, שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶן כְּמַעֲשֵׂה זִמְרִי וּמְבַקְּשִׁין שָׂכָר כְּפִנְחָס.
§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear. The Gemara explains: The righteous of Shechem [shikhmi]; this is one who performs actions comparable to the action of the people of Shechem, who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self-flagellating righteous; this is one who injures his feet, as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says that this is one who lets blood by banging his head against the walls because he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The pestle-like righteous; Rabba bar Sheila says that this is one who walks bent over like the pestle of a mortar. With regard to the righteous one who says: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, the Gemara asks: Isn’t this virtuous behavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? Rather, this is referring to one who says: Tell me what further obligations are incumbent upon me and I will perform them, indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations. The baraita also includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. Abaye and Rava said to the tanna who transmitted this baraita: Do not teach in the baraita: Those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and in performance of the mitzvot even if he does not do so for their own sake, as through performing them not for their own sake, one comes to perform them for their own sake. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).
מָה בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה: הָאִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וּפוֹרֵם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה פּוֹרַעַת וּפוֹרֶמֶת. הָאִישׁ מַדִּיר אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנָזִיר, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַדֶּרֶת בְּנָהּ בְּנָזִיר. הָאִישׁ מְגַלֵּחַ עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיו, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְגַלַּחַת עַל נְזִירוּת אָבִיהָ.
§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear. The Gemara explains: The righteous of Shechem [shikhmi]; this is one who performs actions comparable to the action of the people of Shechem, who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self-flagellating righteous; this is one who injures his feet, as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says that this is one who lets blood by banging his head against the walls because he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The pestle-like righteous; Rabba bar Sheila says that this is one who walks bent over like the pestle of a mortar. With regard to the righteous one who says: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, the Gemara asks: Isn’t this virtuous behavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? Rather, this is referring to one who says: Tell me what further obligations are incumbent upon me and I will perform them, indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations. The baraita also includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. Abaye and Rava said to the tanna who transmitted this baraita: Do not teach in the baraita: Those who are righteous due to love and those who are righteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and in performance of the mitzvot even if he does not do so for their own sake, as through performing them not for their own sake, one comes to perform them for their own sake. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).
הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״וְרָגְמוּ אוֹתוֹ״. מַאי ״אוֹתוֹ״? אִילֵּימָא אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ, וְהָכְתִיב ״וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִיא״! אֶלָּא: אוֹתוֹ בְּלֹא כְּסוּתוֹ, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ בְּלֹא כְּסוּתָהּ. הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְתָלִיתָ אוֹתוֹ עַל עֵץ״, אוֹתוֹ וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ. הָאִישׁ נִמְכָּר בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִמְכֶּרֶת בִּגְנֵיבָתָהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ״, בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ וְלֹא בִּגְנֵיבָתָהּ.
§ The mishna states: A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And let the entire congregation stone him” (Leviticus 24:14). What does the term “him” come to exclude? If we say this means that they stone him but not her, i.e., that a woman is not stoned at all, but isn’t it written: “And you shall take out that man or that woman, who did this evil thing, to your gates, that man or that woman; and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:5). Rather, the term “him” excludes his garment, indicating that he is stoned without his garment. And a woman is excluded from this halakha, as one may infer from the term “him” that they do not stone her without her garment. The mishna states: A man is hanged, but a woman is not hanged. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And if a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree” (Deuteronomy 21:22). The verse indicates that one should hang “him,” a man, but not her, a woman. The mishna states: A man is sold for his committing an act of theft, but a woman is not sold for her committing an act of theft. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The verse states: “If the sun rose upon him, there is blood-guilt for him; he shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Exodus 22:2). The verse indicates that he is sold for his theft, but she is not sold for her theft.
בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר יִפֹּל מֵהֶם אֶל תּוֹכוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא״, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״טָמֵא״ אֶלָּא ״יִטְמָא״, לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים. לִמֵּד עַל כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא אֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִי יְגַלֶּה עָפָר מֵעֵינֶיךָ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר: עָתִיד דּוֹר אַחֵר לְטַהֵר כִּכָּר שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, וַהֲלֹא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תַּלְמִידְךָ מֵבִיא לוֹ מִקְרָא מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא״. בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת פְּאַת קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְגוֹ׳״, וּמִקְרָא אַחֵר אֹמֵר: ״מִקִּיר הָעִיר וָחוּצָה אֶלֶף אַמָּה סָבִיב״. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אֶלֶף אַמָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה. וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אֶלֶף אַמָּה. הָא כֵּיצַד? אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִגְרָשׁ, וְאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה תְּחוּם הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִגְרָשׁ, וְאַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים. בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לַה׳ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר״, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֵאמֹר״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֵאמֹר״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹנִין שִׁירָה אַחֲרָיו שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה עַל כׇּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר כְּקוֹרְאִין אֶת [הַ]הַלֵּל: (״אָשִׁירָה לַה׳ כִּי גָאֹה גָּאָה״.) לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״לֵאמֹר״. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: כְּקוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע, וְלֹא כְּקוֹרִין אֶת [הַ]הַלֵּל. בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן הוּרְקָנוֹס: לֹא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֵן יִקְטְלֵנִי לוֹ אֲיַחֵל״. וַעֲדַיִין הַדָּבָר שָׁקוּל: לוֹ אֲנִי מְצַפֶּה, אוֹ אֵינִי מְצַפֶּה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַד אֶגְוָע לֹא אָסִיר תֻּמָּתִי מִמֶּנִּי״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּאַהֲבָה עָשָׂה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִי יְגַלֶּה עָפָר מֵעֵינֶיךָ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁהָיִיתָ דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל יָמֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא עָבַד אִיּוֹב אֶת הַמָּקוֹם אֶלָּא מִיִּרְאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ תָּם וְיָשָׁר יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים וְסָר מֵרָע״, וַהֲלֹא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ תַּלְמִיד תַּלְמִידְךָ לִמֵּד שֶׁמֵּאַהֲבָה עָשָׂה.
§ On that same day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed head of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: “And every earthen vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure [yitma], and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33), as follows: The verse does not state: Is impure [tamei], but rather: “Shall be impure,” in order to indicate that not only does the vessel itself become ritually impure, but it can now render other items ritually impure. This teaches with regard to a loaf that has second-degree ritual impurity status due to its being placed inside an earthenware vessel that had first-degree impurity, that it can render other food with which it comes into contact impure with third-degree impurity status. After hearing Rabbi Akiva’s statement, Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you would say: In the future, another generation is destined to deem pure a loaf that contracted third-degree impurity, as there is no explicit verse from the Torah stating that it is impure. But now Rabbi Akiva, your disciple, brings a verse from the Torah indicating that it is impure, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it shall be impure.” Furthermore, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verses with regard to the Levite cities as follows: One verse states: “And you shall measure outside the city for the east side two thousand cubits…this shall be for them the open land outside the cities” (Numbers 35:5), and another verse states: “And the open land around the cities, which you shall give to the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward one thousand cubits round about” (Numbers 35:4). It is impossible to say that the area around the cities given to the Levites was only one thousand cubits, as it is already stated: “Two thousand cubits.” And it is impossible to say that two thousand cubits were left for them, as it is already stated: “One thousand cubits.” How can these texts be reconciled? One thousand cubits are to be set aside as a tract of open land surrounding the city, and the two thousand cubits are mentioned not in order to be given to the Levites, but to indicate the boundary of the Shabbat limit, beyond which it is forbidden to travel on Shabbat. This verse thereby serves as the source for the two-thousand-cubit Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says otherwise: One thousand cubits were given to the Levites as an open tract of land, that could not be planted or built upon, and two thousand cubits of additional land were given to the Levites for planting fields and vineyards. Additionally, on that same day Rabbi Akiva interpreted the verse: “Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the Lord, and said, saying” (Exodus 15:1), as follows: As there is no need for the verse to state the word “saying,” because it states the word “said” immediately prior to it, why must the verse state the word “saying”? It teaches that the Jewish people would repeat in song after Moses every single statement he said, as is done when reciting hallel. After Moses would recite a verse, they would say as a refrain: “I will sing to the Lord, for He is highly exalted” (Exodus 15:1). It is for this reason that the word “saying” is stated, in addition to the word “said.” Rabbi Neḥemya says: The people sang the song together with Moses as is done when reciting Shema, which is recited in unison after the prayer leader begins, and not as is done when reciting hallel. On that same day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus taught: Job served the Holy One, Blessed be He, only out of love, as it is stated: “Though He will slay me, still I will trust in Him” (Job 13:15). And still, the matter is even, i.e., the verse is ambiguous, as there are two possible interpretations of the verse. Was Job saying: I will await Him, expressing his yearning for God; or should the verse be interpreted as saying I will not await Him. As the word “lo” can mean either “to him” or “not,” it is unclear which meaning is intended here. This dilemma is resolved elsewhere, where the verse states a clearer indication of Job’s intent: “Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me” (Job 27:5). This teaches that he acted out of love. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Who will remove the dirt from your eyes, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, so that you could live and see this? As you taught all your life that Job worshipped the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it is stated: “And that man was wholehearted and upright, and God-fearing, and shunned evil” (Job 1:1); but now Yehoshua ben Hyrcanus, the disciple of your disciple, has taught that Job acted out of love.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַיָּם נָתְנוּ עֵינֵיהֶם לוֹמַר שִׁירָה. וְכֵיצַד אָמְרוּ שִׁירָה — עוֹלָל מוּטָּל עַל בִּרְכֵּי אִמּוֹ, וְתִינוֹק יוֹנֵק מִשְּׁדֵי אִמּוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת הַשְּׁכִינָה, עוֹלָל הִגְבִּיהַּ צַוָּארוֹ, וְתִינוֹק שָׁמַט דַּד מִפִּיו, וְאָמְרוּ ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִפִּי עוֹלְלִים וְיֹנְקִים יִסַּדְתָּ עֹז״. הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּרִים שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִמָּן אָמְרוּ שִׁירָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים ה׳ מִמְּקוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל״. וְהָא לָא חֲזוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: כָּרֵס נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶן כְּאַסְפַּקְלַרְיָא הַמְּאִירָה וְרָאוּ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: At the time that the Jewish people ascended from the sea they resolved to sing a song of gratitude to God. And how did they recite this song? If a baby was lying on his mother’s lap or an infant was nursing from his mother’s breasts, once they saw the Divine Presence, the baby straightened his neck and the infant dropped the breast from his mouth, and they recited: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). As it is stated: “Out of the mouths of babies and sucklings You have founded strength” (Psalms 8:3). Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even fetuses in their mother’s womb recited the song at the sea? As it is stated: “In full assemblies, bless God, the Lord, you that are from the source of Israel” (Psalms 68:27), indicating that even children that are in the “source,” i.e., their mother’s womb, blessed God when they gathered at the sea. The Gemara asks: But the fetuses could not see, so how could they have honestly said: “This is my God and I will glorify him”? Rabbi Tanḥum says: Their mother’s stomach was transformed for them like luminous crystal [aspaklarya], and they saw through it.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ בְּאִיּוֹב, וְנֶאֱמַר ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ בְּאַבְרָהָם, מָה ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ הָאָמוּר בְּאַבְרָהָם — מֵאַהֲבָה, אַף ״יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים״ הָאָמוּר בְּאִיּוֹב — מֵאַהֲבָה. וְאַבְרָהָם גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן — דִּכְתִיב ״זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם אֹהֲבִי״. מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין עוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה לְעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה? אִיכָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: גָּדוֹל הָעוֹשֶׂה מֵאַהֲבָה יוֹתֵר מִן הָעוֹשֶׂה מִיִּרְאָה, שֶׁזֶּה תָּלוּי לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. וְזֶה תָּלוּי לְאַלְפַּיִם דּוֹר. הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״לַאֲלָפִים לְאֹהֲבַי וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי״, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב: ״וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר״. הָתָם נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר״! הַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ וְהַאי לְדִסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ. הָנְהוּ תְּרֵי תַּלְמִידֵי דַּהֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, חַד אָמַר לֵיהּ אַקְרְיוּן בְּחֶלְמַאי: ״מָה רַב טוּבְךָ אֲשֶׁר צָפַנְתָּ לִּירֵאֶיךָ״, וְחַד אָמַר לֵיהּ: אַקְרְיוּן בְּחֶלְמַאי ״וְיִשְׂמְחוּ כׇל חוֹסֵי בָךְ לְעוֹלָם יְרַנֵּנוּ וְיַעְלְצוּ בְךָ אֹהֲבֵי שְׁמֶךָ״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תַּרְוַיְיכוּ רַבָּנַן צַדִּיקֵי גְּמוּרֵי אַתּוּן. מָר מֵאַהֲבָה, וּמָר מִיִּרְאָה.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:1) that Rabbi Meir says: It is stated with regard to Job that he was “God-fearing” (Job 1:1), and it is stated with regard to Abraham that he was “God-fearing” (Genesis 22:12). Just as the description “God-fearing,” which is stated with regard to Abraham, is referring to Abraham’s fearing God out of love, so too, the description “God-fearing” that is stated with regard to Job indicates that Job feared God out of love. The Gemara asks: And with regard to Abraham himself, from where do we derive that he acted out of a sense of love? As it is written: “The offspring of Abraham who loved Me” (Isaiah 41:8). The Gemara asks: What difference is there between one who performs mitzvot out of love and one who performs mitzvot out of fear? The Gemara answers: There is that which is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Greater is the one who performs mitzvot out of love than the one who performs mitzvot out of fear, as with regard to this one who acts out of fear, his merits endure for one thousand generations, and with regard to that one who serves God out of love, his merits endure for two thousand generations. Proof of this assertion is that here it is written: “And showing mercy unto thousands of generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Exodus 20:5), indicating that merits can last for thousands of generations for those who act out of love, and there it is written: “Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God; the faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and mercy with those who love Him and keep His commandments for a thousand generations” (Deuteronomy 7:9). The first verse indicates that those who act out of love retain their merits for thousands of generations, whereas the second verse, which mentions only one thousand generations of merit, is referring to the merits of those who keep God’s mitzvot out of fear. The Gemara asks: But there also, in the second verse, it is written: “The faithful God, Who keeps the covenant and mercy with those who love Him and keep His commandments for a thousand generations” (Deuteronomy 7:9). Why is the verse interpreted specifically with regard to those who worship God out of fear, yet it is written that they keep His mitzvot out of love? Both types of people seem to be indicated in both verses. The Gemara answers: That verse, which mentions one thousand generations, is understood as referring to that which is adjacent to it. The phrase “for a thousand generations” is understood as referring those who perform mitzvot out of fear, as it is written immediately preceding the phrase “and keep His commandments,” which does not mention love. And this verse, which mentions thousands of generations, is understood as referring to that which is adjacent to it: “Unto thousands of generations of those who love Me.” It happened that there were these two students who were sitting before Rava, and one said to him: It was read to me in my dream: “How abundant is Your goodness, which You have laid up for those who fear You” (Psalms 31:20). And one said to Rava: It was read to me in my dream: “So shall all those who take refuge in You rejoice; they will forever shout for joy, and You will shelter them; let them also who love Your name exult in You” (Psalms 5:12). Rava said to them: You are both completely righteous Sages. One Sage, the second dreamer, serves God out of love, and one Sage, the first dreamer, serves God out of fear. Each Sage’s dream corresponded to his manner of serving God.
אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָרִין בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן: פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה, וּוִידּוּי מַעֲשֵׂר, קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע, וּתְפִלָּה, וּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן, וּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן. וְאֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָרִין בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ: מִקְרָא בִּיכּוּרִים, וַחֲלִיצָה, בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת, בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים, וּבִרְכַּת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּפָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ, וּפָרָשַׁת עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וּמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר אֶל הָעָם. מִקְרָא בִּיכּוּרִים כֵּיצַד? ״וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָנוּ הַלְוִיִּם וְאָמְרוּ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ — אַף כָּאן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. חֲלִיצָה כֵּיצַד? ״וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָנוּ הַלְוִיִּם וְאָמְרוּ״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ — אַף כָּאן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה״ — עַד שֶׁתֹּאמַר בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה. בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת כֵּיצַד? כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן וּבָאוּ אֶל הַר גְּרִיזִים וְאֶל הַר עֵיבָל שֶׁבְּשׁוֹמְרוֹן, שֶׁבְּצַד שְׁכֶם, שֶׁבְּאֵצֶל אֵלוֹנֵי מוֹרֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲלֹא הֵמָּה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְגוֹ׳״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם בָּאָרֶץ עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה״. מָה אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — שְׁכֶם, אַף אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה הָאָמוּר כָּאן — שְׁכֶם. שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים עָלוּ לְרֹאשׁ הַר גְּרִיזִים וְשִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים עָלוּ לְרֹאשׁ הַר עֵיבָל, וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְהָאָרוֹן עוֹמְדִים לְמַטָּה בָּאֶמְצַע. הַכֹּהֲנִים מַקִּיפִין אֶת הָאָרוֹן, וְהַלְוִיִּם אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים, וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּזְקֵנָיו וְשֹׁטְרִים וְשֹׁפְטָיו עוֹמְדִים מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה לָאָרוֹן וְגוֹ׳״. הָפְכוּ פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי הַר גְּרִיזִים וּפָתְחוּ בִּבְרָכָה: ״בָּרוּךְ הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה״, וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עוֹנִין ״אָמֵן״. הָפְכוּ פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי הַר עֵיבָל וּפָתְחוּ בִּקְלָלָה: ״אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה״, וְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עוֹנִין ״אָמֵן״, עַד שֶׁגּוֹמְרִין בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים, וּבָנוּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְסָדוּהוּ בְּסִיד, וְכָתְבוּ עָלָיו אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה בְּשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב״. וְנָטְלוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים, וּבָאוּ וְלָנוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן.
MISHNA: These are recited in any language, not specifically Hebrew: The portion of the warning and the oath administered by the priest to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]; and the declaration of tithes, which occurs after the third and the sixth years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately; Shema; and the Amida prayer; and Grace after Meals; and an oath of testimony, where one takes an oath that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue; and an oath on a deposit, where one takes an oath that he does not have possession of another’s deposit. And these are recited only in the sacred tongue, Hebrew: The recitation of the verses that one recounts when bringing the first fruits to the Temple; and the recitations which form an element of the ritual through which a yavam frees a yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza]; the blessings and curses that were spoken on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal; the Priestly Benediction; and the blessing on the Torah recited by the High Priest on Yom Kippur; and the portion of the Torah read by the king at the assembly on Sukkot at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year; and the portion recited during the ritual of a heifer whose neck is broken, when a person is found killed in an area that is between two cities, and the murderer is unknown; and the speech of a priest who is anointed for war when he addresses the nation before going out to battle. How is it derived that the recitation when bringing the first fruits is recited specifically in Hebrew? When the Torah discusses this mitzva it states: “And you shall speak and say before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 26:5), and below, in the discussion of the blessings and curses, it states: “And the Levites shall speak and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14). Just as there, the Levites speak in the sacred tongue, so too here, the recitation is in the sacred tongue. How is it derived that the recitation at a ḥalitza ceremony must be in Hebrew? The verse in the Torah portion discussing ḥalitza states: “And she shall speak and say” (Deuteronomy 25:9), and below it states: “And the Levites shall speak and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14). Just as there, the Levites speak in the sacred tongue, so too here, the recitation is in the sacred tongue. Rabbi Yehuda says: This can be derived from a different word in the verse: “And she shall speak and say: So shall it be done to the man that does not build up his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9). The word “so” indicates that her statement is ineffective unless she says it in these exact words. How did the ceremony of the blessings and curses take place? When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River they came to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, which are in Samaria alongside the city of Shechem, which is near the oaks of Moreh, as it is stated: “Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?” (Deuteronomy 11:30), and there it states: “And Abram passed through the land until the place of Shechem, until the oaks of Moreh” (Genesis 12:6). Just as the oaks of Moreh mentioned there with regard to Abraham are close to Shechem, so too, the oaks of Moreh mentioned here are close to Shechem. Six tribes ascended to the top of Mount Gerizim and six tribes ascended to the top of Mount Ebal, and the priests and the Levites and the Ark were standing at the bottom in the middle, between the two mountains. The priests were surrounding the Ark and the Levites were surrounding the priests, and all the rest of the Jewish people were standing on the mountains on this side and on that side, as it is stated: “And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side of the Ark and on that side before the priests the Levites that bore the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord” (Joshua 8:33). The Levites then turned to face Mount Gerizim and opened with the blessing: Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image (see Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people, i.e., the two groups standing on either mountain, answered: Amen. Then they turned to face Mount Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people answered: Amen. They continued in this manner until they completed reciting all of the blessings and curses. And afterward they brought the stones as commanded in the Torah, and they built the altar and plastered it with plaster, and they wrote on it all of the words of the Torah in seventy languages, as it is stated: “And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law clearly elucidated” (Deuteronomy 27:8), indicating that it was to be written in every language. And they then took the stones from there and came to Gilgal and slept in their lodging place.
תְּפִלָּה: רַחֲמֵי הִיא, כׇּל הֵיכִי דְּבָעֵי מְצַלֵּי. וּתְפִלָּה בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְעוֹלָם אַל יִשְׁאַל אָדָם צְרָכָיו בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרָמִית, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹאֵל צְרָכָיו בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי — אֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת נִזְקָקִין לוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מַכִּירִין בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּיָחִיד, הָא — בְּצִבּוּר. וְאֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מַכִּירִין בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי? וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שָׁמַע בַּת קוֹל מִבֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: נְצַחוּ טָלַיָּא דַּאֲזַלוּ לַאֲגָחָא קְרָבָא לְאַנְטוֹכְיָא. וְשׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק שֶׁשָּׁמַע בַּת קוֹל מִבֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: בְּטֵילַת עֲבִידְתָּא דַּאֲמַר שָׂנְאָה לְאַיְיתָאָה עַל הֵיכְלָא וְנֶהֱרַג גַּסְקַלְגָּס וּבָטְלוּ גְּזֵירוֹתָיו. וְכָתְבוּ אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, וְכִיוְּונוּ. וּבְלָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי הָיָה אוֹמֵר! אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: בַּת קוֹל שָׁאנֵי, דִּלְאַשְׁמוֹעֵי עֲבִידָא. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: גַּבְרִיאֵל הֲוָה. דְּאָמַר מָר: בָּא גַּבְרִיאֵל וְלִימְּדוֹ שִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן.
§ It is stated in the mishna that the Amida prayer may be recited in any language. The reason for this is that since prayer is a request for divine mercy, one may pray in any way that one desires. The Gemara asks: But may prayer really be recited in any language? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say: A person should never request in the Aramaic language that his needs be met, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said that with regard to anyone who requests in the Aramaic language that his needs be met, the ministering angels do not attend to him, as the ministering angels are not familiar [makkirin] with the Aramaic language? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to the prayer of an individual, who needs the support of the angels, whereas this statement of the mishna is referring to communal prayer. The Gemara asks: And are the ministering angels not familiar with the Aramaic language? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 13:5): Yoḥanan the High Priest heard a Divine Voice emerging from the House of the Holy of Holies that was saying: The youth who went to wage war in Antokhya have been victorious. And there was another incident involving Shimon HaTzaddik, who heard a Divine Voice emerging from the House of the Holy of Holies that was saying: The decree that the enemy intended to bring against the Temple is annulled, and Gaskalgas, Caligula, has been killed and his decrees have been voided. And people wrote down that time that the Divine Voice was heard, and later found that it matched exactly the moment that Caligula was killed. The Gemara concludes: And this Divine Voice was speaking in the Aramaic language. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the Divine Voice is different, as its purpose is to communicate a message, and therefore it also communicates in Aramaic. And if you wish, say instead that it was the angel Gabriel, as the Master said with regard to Joseph: Gabriel came and taught him seventy languages, as he knows all of the languages, as opposed to the other angels, who do not.
בְּרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת כֵּיצַד? כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲלֹא הֵמָּה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן״, מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֵילָךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. ״אַחֲרֵי דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ — מְקוֹם שֶׁחַמָּה זוֹרַחַת. ״בְּאֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיּוֹשֵׁב בָּעֲרָבָה״ — אֵלּוּ הַר גְּרִיזִים וְהַר עֵיבָל, שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בָּהֶם כּוּתִיִּים. ״מוּל הַגִּלְגָּל״ — סָמוּךְ לַגִּלְגָּל, ״אֵצֶל אֵלוֹנֵי מֹרֶה״ — שְׁכֶם. וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם בָּאָרֶץ עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה״, מָה אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן — שְׁכֶם, אַף כָּאן — שְׁכֶם. תַּנְיָא אָמַר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּדָבָר זֶה זִיַּיפְתִּי סִפְרֵי כוּתִיִּים. אָמַרְתִּי לָהֶם: זִיַּיפְתֶּם תּוֹרַתְכֶם, וְלֹא הֶעֱלִיתֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם כְּלוּם. שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים אֵלוֹנֵי מוֹרֶה שְׁכֶם, אַף אָנוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵלוֹנֵי מוֹרֶה שְׁכֶם. אָנוּ לְמַדְנוּהָ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, אַתֶּם בַּמֶּה לְמַדְתֶּום? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: ״הֲלֹא הֵמָּה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן״ — סָמוּךְ לַיַּרְדֵּן, דְּאִי מֵעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֵילָךְ, הֲלֹא כְּתִיב: ״וְהָיָה בְּעׇבְרְכֶם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן״. ״אַחֲרֵי דֶּרֶךְ מְבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ — מָקוֹם שֶׁהַחַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת. ״בְּאֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי״, אֶרֶץ חִוִּי הִיא! ״הַיּוֹשֵׁב בָּעֲרָבָה״ — וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת הֵן יוֹשְׁבִין! ״מוּל הַגִּלְגָּל״ — וַהֲלֹא לֹא רָאוּ אֶת הַגִּלְגָּל! רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהַרְאוֹת לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ בַּשְּׁנִיָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהֶרְאָה לָהֶן בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. ״דֶּרֶךְ״ — בַּדֶּרֶךְ לֵכוּ, וְלֹא בְּשָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים. ״הַיּוֹשֵׁב״ — בַּיִּשּׁוּב לֵכוּ, וְלֹא בְּמִדְבָּרוֹת. ״בָּעֲרָבָה״ — בַּעֲרָבָה לֵכוּ, וְלֹא בְּהָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד עָבְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן? בְּכׇל יוֹם אָרוֹן נוֹסֵעַ אַחַר שְׁנֵי דְגָלִים, וְהַיּוֹם נָסַע תְּחִילָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה אֲרוֹן הַבְּרִית אֲדוֹן כׇּל הָאָרֶץ עֹבֵר לִפְנֵיכֶם״. בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם לְוִיִּם נוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הָאָרוֹן, וְהַיּוֹם נְשָׂאוּהוּ כֹּהֲנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה כְּנוֹחַ כַּפּוֹת רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹשְׂאֵי אֲרוֹן ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת נָשְׂאוּ כֹּהֲנִים אֶת הָאָרוֹן: כְּשֶׁעָבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן, וּכְשֶׁהֵסֵיבּוּ אֶת יְרִיחוֹ, וּכְשֶׁהֶחְזִירוּהוּ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּיטְבְּלוּ רַגְלֵי כֹהֲנִים בַּמַּיִם, חָזְרוּ הַמַּיִם לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּכְבוֹא נוֹשְׂאֵי הָאָרוֹן עַד הַיַּרְדֵּן וְגוֹ׳ וַיַּעַמְדוּ הַמַּיִם הַיֹּרְדִים מִלְמַעְלָה קָמוּ נֵד אֶחָד״. וְכַמָּה גּוֹבְהָן שֶׁל מַיִם — שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִיל, כְּנֶגֶד מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, אָדָם קַל, אוֹ מַיִם קַלִּים? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: מַיִם קַלִּים. אִם כֵּן, בָּאִין מַיִם וְשׁוֹטְפִין אוֹתָן! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ מַיִם נִגְדָּשִׁין וְעוֹלִין כִּיפִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כִּיפִּין, יָתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת מִיל, עַד שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתָן כׇּל מַלְכֵי מִזְרָח וּמַעֲרָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כׇּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן יָמָּה וְכׇל מַלְכֵי הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֲשֶׁר עַל הַיָּם אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ ה׳ אֶת מֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן מִפְּנֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד עׇבְרָם וַיִּמַּס לְבָבָם וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עוֹד רוּחַ מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. וְאַף רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה אָמְרָה לִשְׁלוּחֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ״כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ ה׳ אֶת מֵי יַם סוּף וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַנִּשְׁמַע וַיִּמַּס לְבָבֵנוּ וְלֹא קָמָה עוֹד וְגוֹ׳״. עוֹדָם בַּיַּרְדֵּן אָמַר לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: דְּעוּ עַל מָה אַתֶּם עוֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן — עַל מְנָת שֶׁתּוֹרִישׁוּ אֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם אֶת כׇּל יוֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״. אִם אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין כֵּן — מוּטָב. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין מַיִם וְשׁוֹטְפִין אוֹתִיכֶם. מַאי ״אוֹתִיכֶם״ — אוֹתִי וְאֶתְכֶם. עוֹדָם בַּיַּרְדֵּן אָמַר לָהֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״הָרִימוּ לָכֶם אִישׁ אֶבֶן אַחַת עַל שִׁכְמוֹ לְמִסְפַּר שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה זֹאת אוֹת בְּקִרְבְּכֶם כִּי יִשְׁאָלוּן בְּנֵיכֶם מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָאֲבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה לָכֶם וְגוֹ׳״, סִימָן לַבָּנִים שֶׁעָבְרוּ אָבוֹת אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן. עוֹדָם בַּיַּרְדֵּן אָמַר לָהֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״שְׂאוּ לָכֶם מִזֶּה מִתּוֹךְ הַיַּרְדֵּן מִמַּצַּב רַגְלֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים הָכִין שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אֲבָנִים וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אוֹתָם עִמָּכֶם וְהִנַּחְתֶּם אוֹתָם בַּמָּלוֹן אֲשֶׁר תָּלִינוּ בוֹ הַלַּיְלָה וְגוֹ׳״. יָכוֹל בְּכׇל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר תָּלִינוּ בוֹ הַלָּיְלָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַבָּא חֲלַפְתָּא וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן מַתְיָא וַחֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי עָמְדוּ עַל אוֹתָן אֲבָנִים, וְשִׁיעֲרוּם כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת שְׁקוּלָה כְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. וּגְמִירִי דִּטְעוּנָא דְּמַדְלֵי אִינִישׁ לְכַתְפֵּיהּ — תִּילְתָּא דִּטְעוּנֵיהּ הָוֵי. מִכָּאן אַתָּה מְחַשֵּׁב לָאֶשְׁכּוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט בִּשְׁנָיִם״. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בַּמּוֹט״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבִּשְׁנַיִם? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בִּשְׁנָיִם״ — בִּשְׁנֵי מוֹטוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: טוּרְטָנֵי, וְטוּרְטָנֵי דְטוּרְטָנֵי, הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁמֹנָה נָשְׂאוּ אֶשְׁכֹּל, אֶחָד נָשָׂא רִימּוֹן, וְאֶחָד נָשָׂא תְּאֵינָה. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב לֹא נָשְׂאוּ כְּלוּם. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲשִׁיבִי. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ עֵצָה.
§ It is stated in the mishna: How did the ceremony of the blessings and curses take place? When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River, etc. The Sages taught: When the Jewish people were in Transjordan, the location of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal was described to them as follows: “Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the coming of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?” (Deuteronomy 11:30). “Are they not beyond the Jordan” means farther west, beyond the Jordan River; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. “Behind the way of the coming of the sun”; this is referring to the place where the sun rises, i.e., the east. In other words, they are at a distance from the Jordan River, which is in the east. “In the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah”; this is referring to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, where the Samaritans now live. “Over against Gilgal”; this means near Gilgal. “Beside the oaks of Moreh”; this is referring to Shechem. And from where is it derived that this is Shechem? There, with regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And Abram passed through the land until the place of Shechem, until the oaks of Moreh” (Genesis 12:6). Just as the oaks of Moreh stated there are identified as Shechem, so too here, they are Shechem. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: In this matter, I proved the falsehood of the books of the Samaritans. I said to them: You forged your Torah by making additions to it, and you have not gained anything from it, as, you say that the oaks of Moreh is referring to Shechem, and we too concede that the oaks of Moreh is referring to Shechem. However, we derived this by means of a verbal analogy between verses. You, who do not use verbal analogies, how did you derive it? Rabbi Elazar disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda and says: “Are they not beyond the Jordan” means near the Jordan River, as, if it meant farther west beyond the Jordan, isn’t it written: “And it shall be when you have passed over the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones which I command you this day, on Mount Ebal” (Deuteronomy 27:4)? This implies that Mount Ebal was near the location where the Jewish people crossed the Jordan. “Behind the way of the coming of the sun,” according to Rabbi Elazar, is referring to the place where the sun sets, in the west. This is distant from Shechem, which is in the center of Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, the verse states: “In the land of the Canaanites,” and Shechem is located in the land of the Hivites (see Genesis 34:2). Similarly, the phrase “that dwell in the Arabah” cannot be a description of the mountains known as Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal that are next to Shechem; aren’t they situated among mountains and hills? The description “over against Gilgal” is also difficult; they could not see Gilgal from Shechem, as it is far away. Rather, according to Rabbi Elazar, Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal mentioned in the Torah are located closer to the Jordan River. They are not the mountains known by the same names that are located near Shechem. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The verse does not come to establish the location of Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. Rather, it comes to show the Jewish people the way the second time, when they were entering the land of Canaan, like the way He showed them the first time, when they left Egypt and a pillar of cloud went before them and made the terrain easier to transverse. The purpose of the verse is to instruct the Jewish people how to enter the land of Canaan with relative ease, despite the absence of the pillar of cloud. The word “way” instructs them to go along a pre-established way, and not in fields and vineyards. The phrase “that dwell” instructs them to go in settled areas and not in the wilderness. “In the Arabah,” which means plain, teaches them to go in the plains and not over mountains and hills. § The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:1): How did the Jewish people cross the Jordan? Every day the Ark would travel behind the two flags of Judah and Reuben, but on that day the Ark traveled in front, as it is stated: “Behold, the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of all the earth is passing before you” (Joshua 3:11). On every other day, the Levites would carry the Ark, but on this day the priests carried it, as is stated: “And when the soles of the feet of the priests that bear the Ark of the Lord, the Lord of all the earth, shall rest” (Joshua 3:13). It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:2) that Rabbi Yosei says: In three different places the priests carried the Ark. They carried it when the Jewish people crossed the Jordan, and when they surrounded Jericho (Joshua 6:6), and when they returned it to its proper place in the Holy of Holies during the reign of King Solomon (I Kings 8:6). And once the feet of the priests were immersed in the water of the Jordan River, the water flowed backward, as it is stated: “And when those carrying the Ark came to the Jordan and the feet of the priests that bore the ark were dipped in the brink of the water, for the Jordan overflows all its banks all the time of harvest; and the waters that came down from above stood, and rose up in one heap” (Joshua 3:15–16). And what was the height of the water? Twelve mil by twelve mil, parallel to the size of the camp of the Jewish people who were passing through the Jordan. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to him: According to your statement, does a person move faster or does water move faster? You must say that water moves faster than a person. If that is so, then before the camp of Israel crossed the river the water would come and drown them, as, after the water rose up to a height of twelve mil it then began flowing normally again. Rather, this teaches that the water gathered and rose in heaps upon heaps to a height of more than three hundred mil, until all the kings of the East and West saw it, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, that were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until they were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel” (Joshua 5:1). And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you” (Joshua 2:10). And it is written: “And as soon as we had heard it, our hearts melted, neither did there remain any more spirit in any man, because of you” (Joshua 2:11). Evidently, the Canaanites were still terrified due to the splitting of the Red Sea, although that had taken place years earlier and in a distant location. It is understood from here how terrified they became when a similar miracle occurred close to where they lived. While the Jewish people were still in the Jordan, Joshua said to them: Know for what purpose you are crossing the Jordan. It is in order to drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, as it is stated: “And you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you” (Numbers 33:52). If you will do so, then all is well, but if not, water will come and drown otikhem. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word otikhem? The Gemara explains: It is a combination of the words me [oti] and you [etkhem]. While they were still in the Jordan, Joshua said to them: “Pick up every man of you a stone upon his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel” (Joshua 4:5). And it is written: “That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask in time to come, saying: What do you mean by these stones?” (Joshua 4:6). This will be a sign for the children that their ancestors crossed the Jordan. While they were still in the Jordan, Joshua said to them: “Take out of the midst of the Jordan, out of the place where the priests’ feet stood, twelve stones made ready, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the lodging place, where you shall lodge this night” (Joshua 4:3). One might have thought that they were required to place these stones at each and every lodging place where they stayed. Therefore, the verse states: “Where you shall lodge this night,” meaning only on that night. Rabbi Yehuda says: Abba Ḥalafta, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Matya, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai stood on those same stones that the Jewish people took from the Jordan, and they measured them and found that each and every one weighed about forty se’a. And it is learned as a tradition that a load that one can lift onto his shoulders is one-third of the weight of the load that he can carry when others load it onto him. From here you can calculate the size of the cluster of grapes that the spies carried together from Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “And they carried it upon a pole between two” (Numbers 13:23). From the fact that it is stated that they carried the cluster of grapes “on a pole” do I not know that it was carried by two people? That is the only way it can be carried on a pole. What is the meaning when the verse states: “Between two”? It means that the spies carried it on two poles, and four people carried the cluster of grapes together. From here it can be deduced that the weight of the cluster was 480 se’a. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They were configured like upper rods of scales [turtanei] that are balanced on the lower rods of scales, i.e., there were not two but four poles. How so? Eight of the spies carried the cluster of grapes, one of them carried a pomegranate, and one carried a fig. Joshua and Caleb did not carry anything. Why did Joshua and Caleb not carry anything? If you wish, say that it is because they were more prominent than the others and it was beneath their dignity to carry such a load. And if you wish, say instead that they did not take part in the wicked counsel of the spies, as the cluster of grapes was brought by the spies to scare the people.
״וַיִּחַר אַף ה׳ בְּעֻזָּה וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם עַל הַשַּׁל וְגוֹ׳״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, חַד אָמַר: עַל עִסְקֵי שָׁלוּ. וְחַד אָמַר: שֶׁעָשָׂה צְרָכָיו בְּפָנָיו. ״וַיָּמׇת שָׁם עִם אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוּזָּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עִם אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים״ — מָה אָרוֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים, אַף עוּזָּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. ״וַיִּחַר לְדָוִד עַל אֲשֶׁר פָּרַץ ה׳ פֶּרֶץ בְּעֻזָּה״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנּוּ פָּנָיו כַּחֲרָרָה. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה כׇּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּחַר״, הָכִי נָמֵי?! הָתָם כְּתִיב ״אַף״, הָכָא לָא כְּתִיב ״אַף״. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ דָּוִד — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּרָא לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה ״זְמִירוֹת״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זְמִרוֹת הָיוּ לִי חֻקֶּיךָ בְּבֵית מְגוּרָי״. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן ״הֲתָעִיף עֵינֶיךָ בּוֹ וְאֵינֶנּוּ״, אַתָּה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָן זְמִירוֹת?! הֲרֵינִי מַכְשִׁילְךָ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִין אוֹתוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלִבְנֵי קְהָת לֹא נָתָן כִּי עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, וְאִיהוּ אַתְיֵיהּ בַּעֲגַלְתָּא.
§ The verse states: “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error [hashal]” (II Samuel 6:7). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagreed over the interpretation of this verse. One says: God smote him for his forgetfulness [shalo], because he did not remember that the Ark can carry itself. And one says: God smote him because he lifted the edges [shulayyim] of his garment in front of the Ark and relieved himself in its presence. The verse states: “And he died there with the Ark of God” (II Samuel 6:7). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Uzzah entered the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “With the Ark of God.” Just as the Ark exists forever, so too, Uzzah entered the World-to-Come. The verse states: “And David was displeased [vayyiḥar] because the Lord had broken forth upon Uzzah” (II Samuel 6:8). Rabbi Elazar says: Vayyiḥar means that his face changed colors and darkened like baked bread [ḥarara] from displeasure. The Gemara questions this statement: If that is so, anywhere that the word vayyiḥar is written, including when it is referring to God, should it be interpreted this way as well? The Gemara answers: There, it is written: “And the anger of the Lord was kindled [vayyiḥar af ]” (II Samuel 6:7), whereas here, the anger [af ] is not written, but only vayyiḥar. Therefore it is interpreted differently. Rava taught: For what reason was David punished with Uzzah’s death? He was punished because he called matters of Torah: Songs, as it is stated: “Your statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage” (Psalms 119:54). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Matters of Torah are so difficult and demanding that it is written: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone” (Proverbs 23:5), i.e., one whose eyes stray from the Torah even for a moment will forget it, and you call them songs? For this reason I will cause you to stumble in a matter that even schoolchildren know, as it is written with regard to the wagons brought to the Tabernacle: “And to the descendants of Kohath he did not give, because the service of the holy things belongs to them; they carry them upon their shoulders” (Numbers 7:9). And although the Ark clearly must be carried on people’s shoulders, David erred and brought it in a wagon.
נִמְצֵאתָ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי אֲבָנִים הָיוּ: אֶחָד שֶׁהֵקִים מֹשֶׁה בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוֹאִיל מֹשֶׁה בֵּאֵר וְגוֹ׳״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכָתַבְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ׳״, וְאָתְיָא ״בֵּאֵר״ ״בֵּאֵר״. וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵקִים יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַיַּרְדֵּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה אֲבָנִים הֵקִים יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַיַּרְדֵּן״. וְאֶחָד שֶׁהֵקִים בַּגִּלְגָּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה הָאֲבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר לָקְחוּ וְגוֹ׳״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד כָּתְבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַל גַּבֵּי אֲבָנִים כְּתָבוּהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל הָאֲבָנִים אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ׳״, וְאַחַר כָּךְ סָדוּ אוֹתָן בְּסִיד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, הֵיאַךְ לָמְדוּ אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם תּוֹרָה? אָמַר לוֹ: בִּינָה יְתֵירָה נָתַן בָּהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְשִׁיגְּרוּ נוֹטֵירִין שֶׁלָּהֶן, וְקִילְּפוּ אֶת הַסִּיד וְהִשִּׂיאוּהָ. וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה נִתְחַתֵּם גְּזַר דִּינָם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת, שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לִלְמֹד וְלֹא לָמְדוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַל גַּבֵּי סִיד כְּתָבוּהָ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהֶן לְמַטָּה ״יְלַמְּדוּ אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל וְגוֹ׳״. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאִם הָיוּ חוֹזְרִין בִּתְשׁוּבָה — הָיוּ מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. אָמַר רָבָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ עַמִּים מִשְׂרְפוֹת סִיד״ — עַל עִסְקֵי סִיד. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כִּי סִיד, מָה סִיד אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה — אַף אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֵין לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה. כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא ״וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כְּנַעֲנִים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, שֶׁאִם חוֹזְרִין בִּתְשׁוּבָה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן? כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of how the Ark was brought into Eretz Yisrael. You are found saying that there were three sets of stones. One is a set that Moses erected in the land of Moab, as it is stated: “Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses took upon himself to expound [be’er] this law, saying” (Deuteronomy 1:5). And it states there with regard to the mitzva to erect the stones on Mount Ebal: “And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law clearly elucidated [ba’er]” (Deuteronomy 27:8). It is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “be’er” that appears with regard to Moses, and the word “ba’er” that appears with regard to the mitzva to write the Torah on the stones on Mount Ebal that Moses also wrote down the Torah on stones. And there is one set that Joshua erected in the Jordan, as it is stated: “Joshua also set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests that bore the Ark of the Covenant stood, and they are there to this day” (Joshua 4:9). And there is one set that Joshua erected in Gilgal, as it is stated: “And these twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal” (Joshua 4:20). The Sages taught: How did the Jewish people write the Torah? Rabbi Yehuda says: They wrote it on stones, as it is stated: “And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 27:8). And afterward they plastered them over with plaster. Rabbi Shimon said to him: According to your statement that they plastered over the writing, how did the nations of the world study Torah? He said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, granted them an extra degree of understanding, and they sent their scribes [noteirin], and they peeled off the plaster and copied it down. And on account of this matter their decree to be sent to the pit of destruction was sealed, as once the Torah was in their possession they should have studied it, and they did not study. Rabbi Shimon says: That is not what happened. Rather, the Jewish people wrote the text of the Torah on top of the plaster, and they wrote below for the gentiles to read that the verse commands the Jewish people to destroy the gentile inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael: “Lest they teach you to do like all their abominations” (Deuteronomy 20:18). You derive from the fact that they wrote this verse that if the gentiles who lived in Eretz Israel would have repented, the Jews would have accepted them, i.e., allowed them to live in Eretz Yisrael. Rava bar Sheila said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written: “And the peoples shall be as the burnings of plaster” (Isaiah 33:12). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that the nations were punished on account of matters of plaster, i.e., they did not study the Torah that was written on plaster. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the Torah was not written on plaster, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: He explains that the gentiles are like plaster; just as plaster has no remedy but burning, i.e., it is created by burning stone, so too, the nations of the world have no remedy other than burning in Gehenna. In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands, and you take them captive” (Deuteronomy 21:10), implying that there is no obligation to destroy them, to include not only gentiles who are not Canaanites, but even Canaanites that are living outside of Eretz Yisrael, as, if they repent, they are accepted and allowed to live in Eretz Yisrael. In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the verse: “You shall keep alive no one who breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16), is not referring to the gentiles living outside of Eretz Yisrael, because there is no concern that the Jewish people will learn “to do like all their abominations” (Deuteronomy 20:18), as these Canaanites are not located in Eretz Yisrael.
בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם: עָבְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן, וּבָאוּ לְהַר גְּרִיזִים וּלְהַר עֵיבָל יָתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים מִיל, וְאֵין כׇּל בְּרִיָּה יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵיהֶם, וְכׇל הָעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵיהֶם מִיָּד נִתְרָז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת אֵימָתִי אֲשַׁלַּח לְפָנֶיךָ וְהַמֹּתִי אֶת כׇּל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר תָּבֹא בָּהֶם וְגוֹ׳״. וְאוֹמֵר ״תִּפֹּל עֲלֵיהֶם אֵימָתָה וָפַחַד ... עַד יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ ה׳״ — זוֹ בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, ״עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ קָנִיתָ״ — זוֹ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה: רְאוּיִין הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם נֵס בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה כְּבִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁגָּרַם הַחֵטְא. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים, וּבָנוּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְסָדוּהוּ בְּסִיד, וְכָתְבוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת כׇּל דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה בְּשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב״, וְהֶעֱלוּ עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, וְאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ וְשָׂמְחוּ, וּבֵרְכוּ וְקִלְּלוּ, וְקִיפְּלוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים, וּבָאוּ וְלָנוּ בַּגִּלְגָּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אוֹתָם עִמָּכֶם וְהִנַּחְתֶּם אוֹתָם בַּמָּלוֹן״. יָכוֹל בְּכׇל מָלוֹן וּמָלוֹן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר תָּלִינוּ בוֹ הַלָּיְלָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה הָאֲבָנִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר לָקְחוּ וְגוֹ׳״. תָּנָא: צִרְעָה לֹא עָבְרָה עִמָּהֶם. וְלָא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת הַצִּרְעָה לְפָנֶיךָ״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: עַל שְׂפַת יַרְדֵּן עָמְדָה, וְזָרְקָה בָּהֶן מָרָה. וְסִימְּתָה עֵינֵיהֶן מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְסֵירְסָתַן מִלְּמַטָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי הִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֶת הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר כְּגֹבַהּ אֲרָזִים גׇּבְהוֹ וְחָסֹן הוּא כָּאַלּוֹנִים וָאַשְׁמִיד פִּרְיוֹ מִמַּעַל וְשׇׁרָשָׁיו מִתָּחַת וְגוֹ׳״. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: שְׁתֵּי צְרָעוֹת הֲוַאי, חֲדָא דְּמֹשֶׁה וַחֲדָא דִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ. דְּמֹשֶׁה לָא עֲבַר, דִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ עֲבַר. שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים עָלוּ לְרֹאשׁ הַר גְּרִיזִים כּוּ׳. מַאי ״וְהַחֶצְיוֹ״? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִין כָּאן — כָּךְ חֲלוּקִין בְּאַבְנֵי אֵפוֹד. מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַל כְּתֵיפָיו, אַחַת מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן, וּשְׁמוֹת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, שִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְשִׁשָּׁה עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁשָּׁה מִשְּׁמוֹתָם עַל הָאֶבֶן הָאֶחָת וְגוֹ׳״. שְׁנִיָּה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם, וְלֹא רִאשׁוֹנָה כְּתוֹלְדוֹתָם — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיְּהוּדָה מוּקְדָּם. וַחֲמִשִּׁים אוֹתִיּוֹת הָיוּ, עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ וְעֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל אֶבֶן זוֹ. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִין בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, חֲלוּקִין בְּאַבְנֵי אֵפוֹד, אֶלָּא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁחֲלוּקִין בְּחוֹמֶשׁ שֵׁנִי. כֵּיצַד? בְּנֵי לֵאָה כְּסִידְרָן, בְּנֵי רָחֵל אֶחָד מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד מִכָּאן, וּבְנֵי שְׁפָחוֹת בָּאֶמְצַע. וְאֶלָּא מַאי אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ — כִּשְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן, וְלֹא כְּשֵׁמוֹת שֶׁקָּרָא לָהֶן מֹשֶׁה. ״רְאוּבֵן״, וְלֹא ״רְאוּבֵנִי״, ״שִׁמְעוֹן״, וְלֹא ״שִׁמְעוֹנִי״, ״דָּן״ וְלֹא ״הַדָּנִי״, ״גָּד״ וְלֹא ״הַגָּדִי״. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא! תְּיוּבְתָּא. וְאֶלָּא מַאי ״וְהַחֶצְיוֹ״? תָּנָא: — חֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל מוּל הַר גְּרִיזִים מְרוּבֶּה מֵחֶצְיוֹ שֶׁל הַר עֵיבָל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֵּוִי לְמַטָּה. אַדְּרַבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֵּוִי לְמַטָּה בָּצְרִי לְהוּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֵּוִי לְמַטָּה — בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף עִמָּהֶם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּה לִּי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב ... וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אִם עַם רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה״. אָמַר לָהֶן: לְכוּ וְהַחְבִּיאוּ עַצְמְכֶם בַּיְּעָרִים, שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁלוֹט בָּכֶם עַיִן הָרָע. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זַרְעֵיהּ דְּיוֹסֵף לָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא בִּישָׁא, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אַל תְּהִי קוֹרֵא ״עֲלֵי עָיִן״, אֶלָּא ״עוֹלֵי עָיִן״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אֲמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ״, מָה דָּגִים שֶׁבַּיָּם — מַיִם מְכַסִּין עֲלֵיהֶן וְאֵין הָעַיִן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן, אַף זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף — אֵין הָעַיִן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן. הָנֵי חֲמִשִּׁים אוֹתִיּוֹת? חֲמִשִּׁים נְכֵי חֲדָא הָוְיָין! אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: יוֹסֵף הוֹסִיפוּ לוֹ אוֹת אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ בְּצֵאתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם״. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: ״כְּתוֹלְדֹתָם״ בָּעֵינַן! אֶלָּא: כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ ״בִּנְיָמִן״ כְּתִיב, וְהָכָא ״בִּנְיָמִין״ שָׁלֵם, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וְאָבִיו קָרָא לוֹ בִנְיָמִין״. אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: יוֹסֵף שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בַּסֵּתֶר — הוֹסִיפוּ עָלָיו אוֹת אַחַת מִשְּׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, יְהוּדָה שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — נִקְרָא כּוּלּוֹ עַל שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. יוֹסֵף מַאי הִיא — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה נִתְכַּוְּונוּ. ״וַיָּבֹא הַבַּיְתָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, וְחַד אָמַר: לַעֲשׂוֹת צְרָכָיו נִכְנַס. ״וְאֵין אִישׁ מֵאַנְשֵׁי הַבַּיִת וְגוֹ׳״, אֶפְשָׁר בַּיִת גָּדוֹל כְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לֹא הָיָה בּוֹ אִישׁ?! תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם יוֹם חַגָּם הָיָה, וְהָלְכוּ כּוּלָּן לְבֵית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְהִיא אָמְרָה לָהֶן חוֹלָה הִיא, אָמְרָה: אֵין לִי יוֹם שֶׁנִּיזְקָק לִי יוֹסֵף כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה. ״וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ לֵאמֹר וְגוֹ׳״, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּאתָה דְּיוֹקְנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו וְנִרְאֲתָה לוֹ בַּחַלּוֹן, אָמַר לוֹ יוֹסֵף! עֲתִידִין אַחֶיךָ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ עַל אַבְנֵי אֵפוֹד וְאַתָּה בֵּינֵיהֶם, רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁיִּמָּחֶה שִׁמְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהֶם, וְתִקָּרֵא רוֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד הוֹן״. מִיָּד — ״וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שֶׁשָּׁבָה קַשְׁתּוֹ לְאֵיתָנָהּ. ״וַיָּפֹזּוּ זְרוֹעֵי יָדָיו״ — נָעַץ יָדָיו בַּקַּרְקַע וְיָצְאָה שִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ מִבֵּין צִיפּוֹרְנֵי יָדָיו. ״מִידֵּי אֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב״, מִי גָּרַם לוֹ שֶׁיֵּחָקֵק עַל אַבְנֵי אֵפוֹד — אֶלָּא אֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב. ״מִשָּׁם רֹעֶה אֶבֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל״, מִשָּׁם זָכָה וְנַעֲשָׂה רוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רוֹעֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל הַאֲזִינָה נֹהֵג כַּצֹּאן יוֹסֵף״. תַּנְיָא: הָיָה רָאוּי יוֹסֵף לָצֵאת מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִיַּעֲקֹב אָבִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב יוֹסֵף״, אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא שִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ מִבֵּין צִיפּוֹרְנֵי יָדָיו. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יָצְאוּ מִבִּנְיָמִין אָחִיו, וְכוּלָּן נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן בֶּלַע וָבֶכֶר וְאַשְׁבֵּל וְגוֹ׳״. ״בֶּלַע״ — שֶׁנִּבְלַע בֵּין הָאוּמּוֹת, ״וּבֶכֶר״ — בְּכוֹר לְאִמּוֹ הָיָה, ״וְאַשְׁבֵּל״ — שֶׁשְּׁבָאוֹ אֵל, ״גֵּרָא״ — שֶׁגָּר בְּאַכְסַנְיוֹת, ״וְנַעֲמָן״ — שֶׁנָּעִים בְּיוֹתֵר, ״אֵחִי וָרֹאשׁ״ — אָחִי הוּא וְרֹאשִׁי הוּא, ״מֻפִּים וְחֻפִּים״ — הוּא לֹא רָאָה בְּחוּפָּתִי וַאֲנִי לֹא רָאִיתִי בְּחוּפָּתוֹ, ״וָאָרְדְּ״ — שֶׁיָּרַד לְבֵין אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: ״וָאָרְדְּ״ — שֶׁפָּנָיו דּוֹמִין לְוֶורֶד. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ פַּרְעֹה לְיוֹסֵף ״וּבִלְעָדֶיךָ לֹא יָרִים אִישׁ אֶת יָדוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, אָמְרוּ אִיצְטַגְנִינֵי פַרְעֹה: עֶבֶד שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ רַבּוֹ בְּעֶשְׂרִים כֶּסֶף תַּמְשִׁילֵהוּ עָלֵינוּ? אָמַר לָהֶן: גִּנּוּנֵי מַלְכוּת אֲנִי רוֹאֶה בּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, יְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ בְּשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן! בָּא גַּבְרִיאֵל וְלִימְּדוֹ שִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. לָא הֲוָה קָגָמַר. הוֹסִיף לוֹ אוֹת אַחַת מִשְּׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְלָמַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ בְּצֵאתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם שְׂפַת לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶשְׁמָע״. וּלְמָחָר, כֹּל לִישָּׁנָא דְּאִישְׁתַּעִי פַּרְעֹה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ. אִישְׁתַּעִי אִיהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, לָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע מַאי הֲוָה אָמַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַגְמַרִי. אַגְמְרֵיהּ וְלָא גְּמַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתְּבַע לִי דְּלָא מְגַלֵּית. אִישְׁתְּבַע לוֹ. כִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אָבִי הִשְׁבִּיעַנִי לֵאמֹר״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אִיתְּשִׁיל אַשְּׁבוּעֲתָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאִיתְּשִׁיל נָמֵי אַדִּידָךְ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲלֵה וּקְבֹר אֶת אָבִיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבִּיעֶךָ״. יְהוּדָה מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֶׁעָמְדוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל הַיָּם הָיוּ שְׁבָטִים מְנַצְּחִים זֶה עִם זֶה, זֶה אוֹמֵר: אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִלָּה לַיָּם, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִלָּה לַיָּם, קָפַץ שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין וְיָרַד לַיָּם תְּחִילָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׁם בִּנְיָמִין צָעִיר רֹדֵם״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״רֹדֵם״ אֶלָּא ״רָד יָם״. וְהָיוּ שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה רוֹגְמִים אוֹתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה רִגְמָתָם״. לְפִיכָךְ זָכָה בִּנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק וְנַעֲשָׂה אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָן לַגְּבוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא זֶה אוֹמֵר: אֵין אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִילָּה לַיָּם, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: אֵין אֲנִי יוֹרֵד תְּחִילָּה לַיָּם, קָפַץ נַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב וְיָרַד לַיָּם תְּחִילָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״סְבָבֻנִי בְכַחַשׁ אֶפְרַיִם וּבְמִרְמָה בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה עֹד רָד עִם אֵל״. וְעָלָיו מְפֹרָשׁ בַּקַּבָּלָה: ״הוֹשִׁיעֵנִי אֱלֹהִים כִּי בָאוּ מַיִם עַד נָפֶשׁ ... טָבַעְתִּי בִּיוֵן מְצוּלָה וְאֵין מׇעֳמָד וְגוֹ׳״, ״אַל תִּשְׁטְפֵנִי שִׁבֹּלֶת מַיִם וְאַל תִּבְלָעֵנִי מְצוּלָה וְגוֹ׳״. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה מַאֲרִיךְ בִּתְפִלָּה, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יְדִידַיי טוֹבְעִים בַּיָּם וְאַתָּה מַאֲרִיךְ בִּתְפִלָּה לְפָנַי?! אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם! וּמָה בְּיָדִי לַעֲשׂוֹת? אָמַר לוֹ: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ. וְאַתָּה הָרֵם אֶת מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה אֶת יָדְךָ וְגוֹ׳״. לְפִיכָךְ, זָכָה יְהוּדָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מֶמְשָׁלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָיְתָה יְהוּדָה לְקׇדְשׁוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַמְשְׁלוֹתָיו״, מָה טַעַם ״הָיְתָה יְהוּדָה לְקׇדְשׁוֹ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מַמְשְׁלוֹתָיו״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּ״הַיָּם רָאָה וַיָּנֹס״. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר לֵוִי לְמַטָּה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה. וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁכְּבָר נֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה. הָא כֵּיצַד? זִקְנֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה לְמַטָּה, וְהַשְּׁאָר לְמַעְלָה. רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְשָׁרֵת לְמַטָּה, וְהַשְּׁאָר לְמַעְלָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ לְמַטָּה הֵן עוֹמְדִים, הָפְכוּ פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי הַר גְּרִיזִים וּפָתְחוּ בִּבְרָכָה, כְּלַפֵּי הַר עֵיבָל וּפָתְחוּ בִּקְלָלָה. מַאי ״עַל״ — עַל בְּסָמוּךְ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְנָתַתָּ עַל הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת לְבוֹנָה זַכָּה״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״עַל״ — בְּסָמוּךְ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא עַל מַמָּשׁ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְסַכֹּתָ עַל הָאָרֹן״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ. הָפְכוּ פְּנֵיהֶם כְּלַפֵּי הַר גְּרִיזִים וּפָתְחוּ בִּבְרָכָה כּוּ׳, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בָּרוּךְ״ בִּכְלָל, ״בָּרוּךְ״ בִּפְרָט. ״אָרוּר״ בִּכְלָל, ״אָרוּר״ בִּפְרָט, לִלְמוֹד וּלְלַמֵּד לִשְׁמוֹר וְלַעֲשׂוֹת, הֲרֵי אַרְבַּע, אַרְבַּע וְאַרְבַּע הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנֶה, שְׁמוֹנֶה וּשְׁמוֹנֶה הֲרֵי שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. וְכֵן בְּסִינַי, וְכֵן בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְגוֹ׳, וּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ׳״. נִמְצָא אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת עַל כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹצִיא הַר גְּרִיזִים וְהַר עֵיבָל, וּמַכְנִיס אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר. וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי וּפְרָטוֹת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת וּפְרָטוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וְנִשְׁנוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְנִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב. וְאֵין לָךְ כׇּל דְּבַר מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים. אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין לְךָ כׇּל מִצְוָה וּמִצְוָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא נִכְרְתוּ עָלֶיהָ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה בְּרִיתוֹת שֶׁל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים. נִמְצָא לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: עָרְבָא וְעָרְבָא דְעָרְבָא אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נַחְמָנִי מְתוּרְגְּמָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה אֶלָּא בְּנוֹאֵף וְנוֹאֶפֶת, ״אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְגוֹ׳״, בְּ״אָרוּר״ סַגִּי לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא: זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן, וְהָלַךְ לְבֵין אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲרוּרִין אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁכָּךְ גָּרְמוּ לוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָתַתָּ אֶת הַבְּרָכָה עַל הַר גְּרִזִים וְאֶת הַקְּלָלָה וְגוֹ׳״, מָה תַּלְמוּד? לוֹמַר אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּרָכָה עַל הַר גְּרִזִים וּקְלָלָה עַל הַר עֵיבָל, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״אֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ לְבָרֵךְ אֶת הָעָם עַל הַר גְּרִזִים״, וּכְתִיב ״וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל הַקְּלָלָה בְּהַר עֵיבָל״! אֶלָּא לְהַקְדִּים בְּרָכָה לִקְלָלָה. יָכוֹל יִהְיוּ כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַקְּלָלוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּרָכָה״ וּ״קְלָלָה״ — בְּרָכָה אַחַת קוֹדֶמֶת לִקְלָלָה, וְאֵין כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַקְּלָלוֹת. וּלְהַקִּישׁ בְּרָכָה לִקְלָלָה, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה קְלָלָה בִּלְוִיִּם, אַף בְּרָכָה בִּלְוִיִּם. וּמָה קְלָלָה בְּקוֹל רָם, אַף בְּרָכָה בְּקוֹל רָם. וּמָה קְלָלָה בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, אַף בְּרָכָה בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּמָה קְלָלָה בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט, אַף בְּרָכָה בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט. וּמָה קְלָלָה — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עוֹנִין וְאוֹמְרִים ״אָמֵן״, אַף בְּרָכָה — אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עוֹנִין וְאוֹמְרִים ״אָמֵן״.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the entrance of the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael: Come and see how many miracles were performed on that day: The Jewish people crossed the Jordan, and they arrived at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, which are more than sixty mil from the river, and on that day no entity was able to stand before them. And anyone who stood before them was immediately struck with diarrhea, as it is stated: “I will send My terror before you, and will confound all the people that you encounter” (Exodus 23:27). And similarly, the verse says: “Terror and dread falls upon them; by the greatness of Your arm they are as still as a stone; till Your people pass over, Lord” (Exodus 15:16). This alludes to the first arrival of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, during the period of Joshua. The verse continues: “Till the people that You have gotten pass over” (Exodus 15:16). This alludes to the second arrival, when the Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia after the destruction of the First Temple. Accordingly, say from now that the Jewish people were worthy of having a miracle performed for them during the second arrival, just like they were worthy of having miracles performed for them during the first arrival, but their sin caused them to enter Eretz Yisrael through a natural process, with the permission of the kings of other nations. The Gemara continues its description of the entrance into Eretz Yisrael during the period of Joshua: And afterward they brought the stones and built the altar on Mount Ebal, and plastered it over with plaster, and wrote on the stones all of the words of the Torah in seventy languages, as it is stated: “And you shall write on the stones all of the words of this law clearly elucidated” (Deuteronomy 27:8). And they sacrificed burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and they ate and drank and celebrated, and they uttered the blessings, and they uttered the curses, and they took [kippelu] the stones with them, and they arrived and slept in Gilgal, as it is stated: “And carry them over with you, and lay them down in the lodging place, where you shall lodge this night” (Joshua 4:3). One might have thought that they were required to place these stones at each and every lodging place where they stayed. Therefore, the verse states: “Where you shall lodge this night,” meaning only on that night. And it is written: “And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal” (Joshua 4:20). It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:10): The hornet [tzira] did not cross the Jordan with them. The Gemara asks: And did it not? But isn’t it written: “And I will send the hornet before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, and the Canaanites” (Exodus 23:28)? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The hornet stood on the banks of the Jordan and threw its venom at the inhabitants of the land and it blinded their eyes from above and castrated them from below, as it is stated: “Yet I destroyed the Amorites before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and they were strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed their fruit from above, and their roots from beneath” (Amos 2:9). Rav Pappa said: There were two hornets. One was the hornet of Moses, which helped conquer the eastern side of the Jordan, and one was the hornet of Joshua. The hornet of Moses did not cross the Jordan, but the hornet of Joshua did cross. § It is stated in the mishna: Six tribes ascended to the top of Mount Gerizim, as it is stated: “Half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and the half of them in front of Mount Ebal” (Joshua 8:33). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term “and the half of them”? It seems to be referring to a division that already existed. Rav Kahana says: The same way that the tribes were divided up here on the mountains, so too were they divided on the stones of the ephod, a garment of the High Priest. The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: The High Priest had two precious stones on the part of the ephod that rested on his shoulders, one on this side and one on that side, and the names of the twelve tribes were written on them, six on this stone and six on that stone, as it is stated: “Six of their names on the one stone, and the names of the six that remain on the other stone, according to their birth” (Exodus 28:10). It is derived from the verse that only the names on the second stone were written according to the order of their birth: Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin. But the names on the first stone were not written according to the order of their birth, as Judah was written first, and afterward came Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Dan, and Naphtali. And there were fifty letters on the two stones of the ephod, twenty-five letters on this stone and twenty-five on that stone. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The names of the tribes were not divided on the stones of the ephod the same way that they were divided in the list found at the beginning of the book of Numbers (Numbers 1:1–15). Rather they were divided the way that they were divided in the second book, i.e., Exodus (Exodus 1:2–4). How were they written? On one stone, the names of the sons of Leah were written in the order of their birth: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. On the other stone the sons of Rachel were written. One, Benjamin, was written on this side, i.e., at the bottom of the list, and one, Joseph, was written on that side, i.e., at the top of the list. And the children of the handmaids, i.e., Bilhah and Zilpah, who were Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher, were written on the second stone in the middle. But rather, if their names were not written in the order of their births, then how do I establish the meaning of the phrase: “According to their birth” (Exodus 28:10)? It means that their names were written according to the names that their father, Jacob, called them, and not according to the names that Moses called them. On the stones it said Reuben, and not Reubenites; Simeon, and not Simeonites; Dan, and not Danites; Gad, and not Gadites. This baraita contradicts Rav Kahana’s opinion, as according to all of the opinions in the baraita, the division of the names on the ephod is not identical to the division of the tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. The Gemara confirms: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana is in fact a conclusive refutation. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is meant by the phrase: “And the half of them facing Mount Ebal” (Joshua 8:33)? It is taught in a baraita: The use of the definitive article in the verse indicates that the smaller half of the Jewish people was on Mount Ebal. The half that was facing Mount Gerizim was larger than the half on Mount Ebal, because the tribe of Levi was included in the group that was facing Mount Gerizim, and they remained on the bottom between the two mountains. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: On the contrary, because the tribe of Levi remained on the bottom they were fewer in number. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Although the tribe of Levi was on the bottom, the descendants of Joseph were among them, and the tribe of Joseph was numerous, as it is stated: “And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying: Why did you give me a single lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Lord has blessed me thus, and Joshua said to them: If you are a great people, you should go up to the forest” (Joshua 17:14–15). The Gemara explains that Joshua said to them: Go and hide yourselves in the forests, so that the evil eye will not have dominion over you, as you are such a large number of people. The tribe of Joseph said to him: The evil eye does not have dominion over the offspring of Joseph, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain” (Genesis 49:22), and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain [alei ayin]”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye [olei ayin], teaching that Joseph and his descendants are not susceptible to the evil eye. The Gemara cites an alternative source for the assertion that the evil eye holds no sway over Joseph and his descendants: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that it is derived from here: Jacob blessed Joseph’s children and said: “And let them grow [veyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish [dagim] in the sea, waters cover them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, so too, with regard to Joseph’s descendants, the evil eye has no dominion over them. The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita that contradicts Rav Kahana’s opinion: Are these names of the tribes, which were written on the ephod, composed of a total of fifty letters? There are only forty-nine. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They added one letter to the name of Joseph [Yosef] when it was written on the ephod, as it is stated: “He appointed it in Joseph [Yehosef] for a testimony when He went forth against the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: We require the names to be written “according to their birth,” and Joseph was not called Yehosef from birth. Rather, the explanation is as follows: Throughout the entire Torah, the name of Benjamin is written without a second letter yod between the letters mem and nun, and here, where he is born, Benjamin is written in full, spelled with a second yod. As it is written: “But his father called him Benjamin” (Genesis 35:18). Therefore, his name was written on the ephod with a second yod, “according to his birth.” § Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in private, had one letter of the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, the letter heh, added to his name. Whereas in the case of Judah, who sanctified the name of Heaven in public [befarhesya] at the Red Sea during the exodus from Egypt, merited that his entire name is called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as the entire four-letter name of God can be found within Judah’s name. The Gemara explains: What is the situation where Joseph sanctified God’s name in private? As it is written: “And it came to pass on a certain day, when he went into the house to do his work” (Genesis 39:11). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that both Joseph and Potiphar’s wife stayed in the house, as they intended to perform a matter of sin. With regard to the phrase “when he went into the house to do his work,” Rav and Shmuel engage in a dispute with regard to its meaning. One says: It means that he went into the house to do his work, literally. And one says: He entered the house in order to fulfill his sexual needs with her. The verse continues: “And there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that in such a large and important house like the house of that wicked man that no one was in there? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: That day was their festival day and they all went to their house of idol worship; and she told them that she was sick and could not go, as she said to herself: I have no day on which Joseph will attend to me like this day. The verse states: “And she caught him by his garment, saying: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:12). At that moment his father’s image [deyokeno] came and appeared to him in the window. The image said to him: Joseph, the names of your brothers are destined to be written on the stones of the ephod, and you are to be included among them. Do you desire your name to be erased from among them, and to be called an associate [ro’eh] of promiscuous women? As it is written: “But he who keeps company with harlots wastes his riches” (Proverbs 29:3), as he loses his honor, which is more valuable than wealth. Immediately: “And his bow abode [teishev] firm” (Genesis 49:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: This means that his bow, i.e., his penis, returned [shava] to its strength, as he overcame his desire. The verse about Joseph continues: “And the arms of his hands were made supple” (Genesis 49:24), meaning that he dug his hands into the ground and his semen was emitted between his fingernails. “By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24): Who caused his name to be etched onto the stones of the ephod? It was only the might of Jacob. “From there, from the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel” (Genesis 49:24) means: From there, because of Joseph’s ability to withstand this trial, he merited to become a shepherd [ro’eh] of the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Listen, O Shepherd of Israel, who leads like the flock of Joseph” (Psalms 80:2). It is taught in a baraita: Joseph was deserving of having twelve tribes descend from him, the same as twelve tribes descended from his father Jacob, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). This implies that everything that happened to Jacob was destined to happen to Joseph. However, he did not merit this because his semen was emitted from between his fingernails. And even so, the offspring that were meant to descend from him descended from his brother Benjamin, who had ten sons. And they were all named after Joseph, as it is stated: “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). The Gemara explains how each name relates to Joseph: Bela was named after Joseph, who was swallowed [nivla] among the nations. And Becher received that name because Joseph was the firstborn [bekhor] of his mother, Rachel. And Ashbel received his name because God sent Joseph into captivity [shevao El] in Egypt. Gera was named after Joseph, who dwelled [gar] in a foreign land [akhsaneyut]. And Naaman was called that because Joseph was extremely pleasing [na’im]. Ehi and Rosh received these names, as Benjamin said: Joseph is my brother [aḥi] and my leader [roshi]. Benjamin named his sons Muppim and Huppim, as Benjamin said: Joseph did not see my wedding canopy [ḥuppa] and I did not see his wedding canopy. And Ard was named after Joseph, who descended [yarad] to the lands of the nations of the world. Some say that the name Ard means that Joseph’s face was similar in its beauty to a rose [vered]. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When Pharaoh said to Joseph: “And without you no man shall lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:44), Pharaoh’s astrologers said: You will appoint a slave whose master bought him for twenty silver coins to rule over us? He said to them: I perceive royal characteristics [ginnunei malkhut] in him and see that he was not initially a slave. They said to him: If that is so and he is a child of royalty, he should know the seventy languages that all kings’ children learn. The angel Gabriel then came and taught him the seventy languages, but he could not learn all of them. Gabriel then added one letter, the letter heh, to Joseph’s name from the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and then he was able to learn the languages, as it is stated: “He appointed it in Joseph [Yehosef] for a testimony, when he went forth against the land of Egypt, the speech of one that I did not know I heard” (Psalms 81:6). And the next day, when he appeared before Pharaoh, in every language that Pharaoh spoke with him, he answered him. Joseph then spoke in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, and Pharaoh did not know what he was saying. Pharaoh said to him: Teach me that language. He taught him, but he could not learn it. Pharaoh said to him: Take an oath for my benefit that you will not reveal that I do not know this language. He took an oath for his benefit. Years later, when Joseph said to Pharaoh: “My father made me swear, saying” (Genesis 50:5) that I would bury him in Eretz Yisrael, Pharaoh said to him: Go request the dissolution of your oath. Joseph said to him: And should I also request dissolution for the oath that I took for your benefit? And consequently, even though Pharaoh was not amenable to letting Joseph go, he worried that Joseph would then request dissolution for the oath that he had taken for his benefit, and Pharaoh therefore said to him: “Go up and bury your father according to what he made you swear” (Genesis 50:6). § What was the incident where Judah sanctified God’s name in public? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: When the Jewish people stood at the Red Sea, the tribes were arguing with one other. This one was saying: I am going into the sea first, and that one was saying: I am going into the sea first. Then, in jumped the tribe of Benjamin and descended into the sea first, as it is stated: “There is Benjamin, the youngest, ruling them [rodem]” (Psalms 68:28). Do not read it as: “Ruling them [rodem]”; rather, read it as: Descending [red] into the sea [yam]. And the princes of the tribe of Judah were stoning them [rogmim otam] for plunging in first and not in the proper order, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “The princes of Judah, their council [rigmatam]” (Psalms 68:28). Therefore, Benjamin the righteous was privileged to serve as host to the Divine Presence of the Almighty, as the Temple was built in the territory of Benjamin, as it is stated in Moses’ blessing for the tribe of Benjamin: “The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him; He covers him all the day, and He rests between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir: That is not how the incident took place. Rather, this tribe said: I am not going into the sea first, and that tribe said: I am not going into the sea first. Then, in jumped the prince of Judah, Nahshon ben Amminadab, and descended into the sea first, accompanied by his entire tribe, as it is stated: “Ephraim surrounds Me with lies and the house of Israel with deceit, and Judah is yet wayward toward God [rad im El]” (Hosea 12:1), which is interpreted homiletically as: And Judah descended [rad] with God [im El]. And in this regard, the tradition, i.e., the Writings, explicates Nahshon’s prayer at that moment: “Save me, God; for the waters are come in even unto the soul. I am sunk in deep mire, where there is no standing…let not the water flood overwhelm me, neither let the deep swallow me up” (Psalms 69:2–3, 16). At that time, Moses was prolonging his prayer. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: My beloved ones are drowning in the sea and you prolong your prayer to me? Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, but what can I do? God said to him: “Speak to the children of Israel that they go forward. And you, lift up your rod and stretch out your hand” (Exodus 14:15–16). For this reason, because Nahshon and the tribe of Judah went into the sea first, the tribe of Judah merited to govern Israel, as it is stated: “Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion. The sea saw it and fled” (Psalms 114:2–3). The baraita interprets the verses in this manner: What is the reason that Judah became His sanctuary and Israel came under His dominion? It is because “the sea saw it and fled.” § The Gemara returns to discussing the blessing and curses. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:9) that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: It is impossible to say that the tribe of Levi stood below, between the two mountains, as it is already stated that they were above, in the verse: “These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when you have passed over the Jordan: Simeon and Levi and Judah” (Deuteronomy 27:12). And it is impossible to say that they stood above on the mountain because it is already stated: “And all of Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side of the Ark and on that side before the priests the Levites” (Joshua 8:33). This shows that the Levites stood below, between the mountains, with the Ark. How is this possible? Only the Elders of the priesthood and the Levites stood below, and the rest of the Levites stood above on the mountain. Rabbi Yoshiya says: Any Levite who was fit to serve in the Temple stood below, between the mountains, and the rest of the tribe, who were too young or too old to serve in the Temple, stood above on the mountain. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Both the Levites and the Israelites were standing below. They turned to face Mount Gerizim and opened with a blessing, and then they turned toward Mount Ebal and opened with a curse. Therefore, what is the meaning of the verse: “These shall stand on [al] Mount Gerizim to bless the people” (Deuteronomy 27:12)? “Al” means adjacent to the mountain but not actually on the mountain itself. As it is taught in a baraita that discusses the shewbread: “And you shall put pure frankincense on [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “Al” in this instance means adjacent to. Do you say that “al” means adjacent to, or perhaps it carries only its literal meaning of “on”? When it says in the verse: “And you shall screen the Ark [al haAron] with the curtain” (Exodus 40:3), the word “al” cannot mean on, as the curtain that separated the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies was not placed on top of the Ark, but near it. Therefore, you must say that “al” means adjacent to. § It is stated in the mishna: They turned to face Mount Gerizim and opened with a blessing: Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image (see Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people, i.e., the two groups standing on either mountain, answered: Amen. Then they turned to face Mount Ebal and opened with the curse: “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15), and these people and those people answered: Amen. The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:10): The blessings and curses include a general blessing for one who fulfills the entire Torah, and a particular blessing for each individual statement mentioned in the blessings and curses. Likewise, there is a general curse for one who does not fulfill the entire Torah and a particular curse for each individual statement. And for each of the blessings and curses there is a mitzva to learn and to teach, and to keep and to perform. Consequently, every mitzva contains four aspects. Four general aspects and four specific aspects add up to eight. Eight blessings and eight curses add up to sixteen. And so too at Mount Sinai, and so too at the plains of Moab, as it is stated: “These are the words of the covenant that the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant that He made with them in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 28:69). And it is written: “Observe therefore the words of this covenant” (Deuteronomy 29:8). It follows that between the three events where sixteen covenants were made, God established forty-eight covenants for each and every mitzva. Rabbi Shimon excludes Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal from this list because only some of the mitzvot were mentioned there, and he includes instead the covenant at the Tent of Meeting in the desert. The Gemara explains: And it is in the dispute between these tanna’im that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:11): Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments. And the details of the mitzvot were explained to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting. Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai, and later repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, and counts Mount Sinai and the Tent of Meeting as two distinct places where all of the mitzvot were given. The baraita concludes: And there is no mitzva written in the Torah for which forty-eight covenants were not established. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: There is no mitzva written in the Torah for which forty-eight covenants were not established 603,550 times, corresponding to the population of the Jewish people in the desert. This is because each member of the Jewish people received the covenant both for himself and as a guarantor for the rest of the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko, who spoke in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there is no mitzva in the Torah for which forty-eight covenants were not established 603,550 times; it follows that for every one of the Jewish people there were 603,550 covenants. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the statements of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda Ish Kefar Akko and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? What does the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi add? Rav Mesharshiyya said: The matter of a guarantor and a guarantor for a guarantor is the difference between them. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, every Jew is not only rendered a guarantor for every other Jew, but he is also rendered a guarantor for every other Jew’s responsibility as a guarantor. Therefore, according to his calculation, the number of covenants is multiplied again by 603,550. § Rabbi Yehuda ben Naḥmani, the disseminator of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, taught: The entire passage of the blessings and curses is stated only in reference to an adulterer and adulteress. This is proved from the verse: “Cursed is the man who makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15). Is a curse a sufficient consequence for the actions of an idol worshipper? He has rebelled against the fundamental tenet of the Torah. Rather, this is referring to one who engaged in sexual intercourse with a forbidden relative and bore her a mamzer son. And the son, who is not allowed to marry a Jew of unflawed lineage, went to live among the other nations of the world and engaged in idol worship. His father and mother are cursed for causing him to worship idols. Likewise, the rest of the curses refer to sins that are the result of adultery. The Sages taught: “And you shall give the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal” (Deuteronomy 11:29). Why must the verse state this? If it is to teach that the blessing must be given on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal, it is already stated: “These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people” (Deuteronomy 27:12), and it is written: “And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse” (Deuteronomy 27:13). Rather, the verse teaches that the proclamation of the blessing must precede the curse. One might have thought that all of the blessings should precede the curses. Therefore, the verse states “blessing” and “curse” in the singular, to teach that one blessing precedes each curse, but all of the blessings do not precede the curses. The blessings and curses were recited alternately, first one blessing and then one curse. And furthermore, the verse comes to juxtapose the blessing with the curse, to say to you that just as the curse is recited by the Levites, so too, the blessing is uttered by the Levites; and just as the curse is proclaimed loudly, so too, the blessing is proclaimed loudly; and just as the curse is proclaimed in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, so too, the blessing is proclaimed in the sacred tongue; and just as the curse is proclaimed both in general and in detail, so too, the blessing is proclaimed in general and in detail. And just as after the curse is uttered, both groups of people on each mountain respond and say amen, so too, after the blessing is uttered, both groups respond and say amen.
מַתְנִי׳ בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים כֵּיצַד? בַּמְּדִינָה אוֹמֵר אוֹתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ בְּרָכוֹת, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּרָכָה אַחַת. בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ אוֹמֵר אֶת הַשֵּׁם כִּכְתָבוֹ, וּבַמְּדִינָה בְּכִינּוּיוֹ. בַּמְּדִינָה כֹּהֲנִים נוֹשְׂאִים אֶת יְדֵיהֶן כְּנֶגֶד כִּתְפֵיהֶן, וּבַמִּקְדָּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי רָאשֵׁיהֶן. חוּץ מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַגְבִּיהַּ יָדָיו לְמַעְלָה מִן הַצִּיץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת יָדוֹ אֶל הָעָם וַיְבָרְכֵם״.
MISHNA: How is the Priestly Benediction recited? In the country, i.e., outside the Temple, the priest recites the verses as three blessings, pausing between each verse while the people respond amen. And in the Temple, the priests recite all three verses as one blessing, after which the people respond: Blessed be the Lord, God, the God of Israel, from eternity to eternity, as is the customary response to blessings in the Temple. In the Temple, the priest utters the name of God as it is written in the Torah, i.e., the Tetragrammaton, and in the country they use its substitute name of Lordship. In the country, the priests lift their hands so they are aligned with their shoulders during the benediction. And in the Temple they lift them above their heads, except for the High Priest, who does not lift his hands above the frontplate. Since the Tetragrammaton is inscribed on it, it is inappropriate for him to lift his hands above it. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the High Priest lifts his hands above the frontplate, as it is stated: “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).
מִשֶּׁלָּהֶם תְּהֵא. וְהִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, וְלֵית הִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. (סִימַן: מִתְאַוֶּה לִבְרָכָה דּוּכָן בַּעֲבוֹדָה כּוֹס מַכִּיר נֶהֱנֶה בְּעֶגְלָה). אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְאַוֶּה לְבִרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂמוּ אֶת שְׁמִי עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרְכֵם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ — מִתְבָּרֵךְ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ — אֵין מִתְבָּרֵךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לַדּוּכָן — עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֲשֵׂה: ״כֹּה תְבָרְכוּ״, ״אָמוֹר לָהֶם״, ״וְשָׂמוּ אֶת שְׁמִי״. רַב אָמַר: חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה הוּא. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא — דְּסָלֵיק לִפְרָקִים, הָא — דְּלָא סָלֵיק לִפְרָקִים. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת יָדָיו אֶל הָעָם וַיְבָרְכֵם וַיֵּרֶד מֵעֲשֹׂת הַחַטָּאת וְהָעוֹלָה וְהַשְּׁלָמִים״, מָה לְהַלָּן — בַּעֲבוֹדָה, אַף כָּאן — בַּעֲבוֹדָה. אִינִי? וְהָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי סָלְקִי! רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ עָקְרִי כַּרְעַיְיהוּ, מִמְטָא לָא הֲוָה מָטוּ הָתָם. וְכִדְתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָקַר אֶת רַגְלָיו, אֲבָל עָקַר אֶת רַגְלָיו — עוֹלֶה. וּתְנַן נָמֵי — אִם הַבְטָחָתוֹ שֶׁנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו וְחוֹזֵר לִתְפִלָּתוֹ — רַשַּׁאי. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: הָא לָא עֲקַר? אֶלָּא דְּנָד פּוּרְתָּא, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּעָקַר פּוּרְתָּא. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אֵין נוֹתְנִין כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה לְבָרֵךְ אֶלָּא לְטוֹב עַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״טוֹב עַיִן הוּא יְבֹרָךְ כִּי נָתַן מִלַּחְמוֹ לַדָּל״, אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״יְבֹרָךְ״ אֶלָּא ״יְבָרֵךְ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ עוֹפוֹת מַכִּירִין בְּצָרֵי הָעַיִן — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי חִנָּם מְזֹרָה הָרָשֶׁת בְּעֵינֵי כׇּל בַּעַל כָּנָף״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִצָּרֵי הָעַיִן עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּלְחַם אֶת לֶחֶם רַע עָיִן וְגוֹ׳ כִּי כְּמוֹ שָׁעַר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ כֶּן הוּא אֱכוֹל וּשְׁתֵה יֹאמַר לָךְ וְגוֹ׳״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין, ״אַל תִּלְחַם״, ״וְאַל תִּתְאָו״.
should be from them; one of the priests themselves should call: Priests. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, that when only one priest is present, the prayer leader does not call: Priest. And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as an Israelite may also call: Priests. § The Gemara cites a mnemonic device for the statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Desires the benediction, platform, during the service, cup, recognize, derives benefit, from a heifer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the Priestly Benediction? As it is stated: “So shall they put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them” (Numbers 6:27). This shows that God waits for the priests to bless the people, and only then He Himself blesses them. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Any priest who blesses the people is blessed from Heaven, and one who does not bless the people is not blessed, as it is stated: “And I will bless those who bless you” (Genesis 12:3). And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Any priest who does not ascend the platform to recite the Priestly Benediction violates three positive mitzvot: “So you shall bless,” “And you shall say to them” (Numbers 6:23), and “So shall they put My name” (Numbers 6:27). Rav says: One need be concerned that a priest who does not ascend to recite the Priestly Benediction is perhaps the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a priest and a yevama who has performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza]. Perhaps he does not ascend to recite the Priestly Benediction because he is disqualified from the priesthood. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to a case where he ascends periodically. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he is disqualified from the priesthood, and the assumption is that he violates three positive mitzvot. Whereas that statement of Rav is referring to a case where one does not ascend to recite the Priestly Benediction even periodically, and therefore there is reason to suspect that he is disqualified from the priesthood. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Any priest who does not ascend the platform during the blessing of the Temple service recited in the Amida prayer may no longer ascend to recite the benediction, as it is stated: “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them; and he came down from offering the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 9:22). Just as there, in the Tabernacle, Aaron lifted up his hands during the service, as evident from the fact that only after he blessed them does it say that he came down from sacrificing the offerings, so too here, in the Amida prayer, the Priestly Benediction is recited during the blessing of Temple service. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t the priests Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi ascend after the blessing of the service? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would begin walking to the platform during the blessing of the service, but they would not arrive there until after the conclusion of this blessing. And this is sufficient in accordance with what Rabbi Oshaya taught: They taught that a priest may not recite the benediction if he did not ascend the platform during the blessing of Temple service only in a case where he did not begin walking. But if he began walking before the prayer leader finished the blessing, he may ascend the platform even after he has finished the blessing. And concerning this issue, we also learned in a mishna (Berakhot 34a): A priest who serves as prayer leader does not recite the Priestly Benediction, but if he is certain that he can lift his hands and recite the benediction, and then resume his prayer without becoming confused, he is permitted to do so. And we discussed it and raised the following difficulty: If he did not begin walking to ascend the platform during the blessing of the service, how is it permitted for him to recite the benediction? Rather, it must be explained that he moved slightly to show that he also wanted to ascend the platform. Here too, the statement of Rabbi Oshaya is referring even to a case where the priest uprooted himself slightly from his place during the blessing of the service. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One may give a cup of blessing to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals only to someone with a good eye, i.e., a generous person, as it is stated: “One who has a good eye will be blessed [yevorakh], for he gives of his bread to the poor” (Proverbs 22:9). Do not read it: “Will be blessed.” Rather, read it: Will bless [yevarekh]. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From where is it derived that even birds recognize miserly people and do not eat the food they have set in bird traps? As it is stated: “For in vain the net is spread in the eyes of any bird” (Proverbs 1:17). And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who derives benefit from miserly people transgresses a prohibition, as it is stated: “Do not eat the bread of one who has an evil eye, and do not desire his delicacies, for as one that has reckoned within himself, so he is. He says to you: Eat and drink, but his heart is not with you” (Proverbs 23:6–7). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: He transgresses two prohibitions, as it says “do not eat” and also “do not desire.”
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אֵין עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל צָרֵי הָעַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת הַדָּם הַזֶּה״. וְכִי עַל לִבֵּנוּ עָלְתָה שֶׁזִּקְנֵי בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים הֵם? אֶלָּא, לֹא בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ, וְלֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ. לֹא בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ וּפְטַרְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, לֹא רְאִינוּהוּ וְהִנַּחְנוּהוּ בְּלֹא לְוָיָיה.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: When a person is found slain between two cities and it is not known who killed him, a heifer whose neck is broken is brought. This occurs only because of miserly people. As it is stated: “And they shall speak and say: Our hands have not shed this blood” (Deuteronomy 21:7). But did it enter our hearts to think that the Elders of the court are murderers? Why it is necessary for them to publicize that they did not kill him? Rather, they must declare: It is not so that this victim came to us and we dismissed him, and it is not so that we saw him and left him. In other words, he did not come to us and we in turn dismissed him without food, and we did not see him and then leave him without an escort. It is miserly people who do not provide others with food and cause them to travel to places where they might be murdered.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: תֵּדַע דְּבִגְבוּלִין נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לְמֵימְרִינְהוּ, כְּלוּם יֵשׁ עֶבֶד שֶׁמְּבָרְכִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַסְבִּיר פָּנִים? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְהוּ, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן עַכּוֹ דְּלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ — אֲנָא נָמֵי לָא אָמֵינָא לְהוּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא עִינְוְתָנָא אֲנָא. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן עַכּוֹ דְּאָמַר אִיהוּ חַד טַעְמָא וְאָמַר אָמוֹרֵיהּ חַד טַעְמָא וְלָא קָפֵיד — אָמֵינָא לָאו עִינְוְתָנָא אֲנָא. וּמַאי עִינְוְותָנוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ? דַּאֲמַרָה לַהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּאָמוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לִדְבֵיתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הָא דִּידַן לָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְדִידָךְ, וְהַאי דְּגָחֵין וְזָקֵיף עֲלֵיהּ — יְקָרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ. אֲזַלָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ וַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: וּמַאי נָפְקָא לִיךְ מִינַּהּ? מִינִּי וּמִינֵּיהּ יִתְקַלַּס עִילָּאָה. וְתוּ, רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אִימְּנוֹ רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ לְמִמְנְיֵיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא, כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיֵהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן עַכּוֹ דִּנְפִישִׁי לֵיהּ בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבוֹת, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִיכָּא רַבָּה. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַעוּ לְהָהוּא אַתְרָא, רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ דְּרַשׁ בְּאַגַּדְתָּא, רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא דְּרַשׁ בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא. שַׁבְקוּהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, וַאֲזוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶמְשֹׁל לְךָ מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה: לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, אֶחָד מוֹכֵר אֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וְאֶחָד מוֹכֵר מִינֵי סִידְקִית, עַל מִי קוֹפְצִין — לֹא עַל זֶה שֶׁמּוֹכֵר מִינֵי סִידְקִית? כׇּל יוֹמָא: הֲוָה מַלְוֵה רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ עַד אוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְבֵי קֵיסָר. הָהוּא יוֹמָא אַלְוְיֵהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא עַד אוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אִיתּוֹתַב דַּעְתֵּיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
Conversely, Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: You should know that in the outlying areas one is also required to say these verses. Is there a servant who is being blessed and his face does not brighten? Therefore, one must recite these verses to give thanks for receiving the Priestly Benediction. Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would recite these verses, but since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko does not say them, I also do not recite them anymore. And Rabbi Abbahu says: At first, I would say to myself that I was humble. Since I saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko himself stated one reason for a matter, and his interpreter stated one other reason of his own rather than delivering the reason that Rabbi Abba stated, and yet Rabbi Abba did not mind, I say to myself that I am not humble. The Gemara asks: And what was the humility of Rabbi Abbahu? The Gemara relates that Rabbi Abbahu’s interpreter’s wife said to Rabbi Abbahu’s wife: This one of ours, i.e., my husband, has no need for your husband Rabbi Abbahu, as he could teach everything on his own. And the fact that he bends over to listen to Rabbi Abbahu, and then stands up above him, and repeats his words to the congregants is merely to show respect for him. Rabbi Abbahu’s wife went and told this to Rabbi Abbahu. He said to her: And what difference does it make to you? Through me and through him the One above will be exalted, and it does not matter which one of us is teaching. And furthermore, in another example of his humility, the Sages were counted and reached a decision to appoint Rabbi Abbahu to be the head of the yeshiva. Since he saw that Rabbi Abba of Akko had many creditors and was impoverished, he attempted to get him out of debt. He said to them: There is a man who is greater than me, Rabbi Abba. The Gemara relates another example of his humility: Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to a certain place. Rabbi Abbahu taught matters of aggada, and at the same time Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba taught halakha. Everyone left Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and went to Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Ḥiyya was offended. Rabbi Abbahu said to him, to appease him: I will tell you a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to two people, one who sells precious stones and one who sells small items [sidkit]. Upon whom do the customers spring? Don’t they spring upon the one who sells small items? Similarly, you teach lofty and important matters that do not attract many people. Everyone comes to me because I teach minor matters. The Gemara relates that every day Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would escort Rabbi Abbahu to his lodging place [ushpizei] out of respect for the house of the emperor, with which Rabbi Abbahu was associated. On that day, Rabbi Abbahu escorted Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to his lodging place, and even so, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s mind was not at ease with Rabbi Abbahu and he felt insulted.
וְשִׁבְּחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים. שִׁבְּחוּהוּ, מִכְּלָל דְּשַׁפִּיר עֲבַד? הָאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ — אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ! מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי. וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְ״לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת״. תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נָתָן: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּלָיָיה — שֶׁהֶחֱנִיפוּ לוֹ לְאַגְרִיפַּס. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁגָּבַר אֶגְרוֹפָהּ שֶׁל חֲנוּפָּה — נִתְעַוְּותוּ הַדִּינִין, וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַמַּעֲשִׂים, וְאֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״מַעֲשַׂי גְּדוֹלִים מִמַּעֲשֶׂיךָ״. דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר מַעְרְבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: מוּתָּר לְהַחְנִיף לִרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִקָּרֵא עוֹד לְנָבָל נָדִיב וּלְכִילַי לֹא יֵאָמֵר שׁוֹעַ״, מִכְּלָל דְּבָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שְׁרֵי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים וַתִּרְצֵנִי״. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: מָשָׁל שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁזִּימֵּן אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהִכִּיר בּוֹ שֶׁמְבַקֵּשׁ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: טְעַם תַּבְשִׁיל זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם כְּתַבְשִׁיל שֶׁטָּעַמְתִּי בְּבֵית הַמֶּלֶךְ. אָמַר: יָדַע לֵיהּ מַלְכָּא, מִיסְתְּפֵי וְלָא קָטֵיל לֵיהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה מֵבִיא אַף לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחַנְפֵי לֵב יָשִׂימוּ אָף״, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִשְׁמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יְשַׁוְּעוּ כִּי אֲסָרָם״. (סִימַן: אַף עוּבָּר גֵּיהִנָּם בְּיָדוֹ נִידָּה גּוֹלָה). וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה — אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּרִין שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִמָּן מְקַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֹמֵר לְרָשָׁע צַדִּיק אָתָּה יִקְּבֻהוּ עַמִּים יִזְעָמוּהוּ לְאֻמִּים״, וְאֵין ״קוֹב״ אֶלָּא קְלָלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל״, וְאֵין ״לְאוֹם״ אֶלָּא עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְאֹם מִלְּאֹם יֶאֱמָץ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲנוּפָּה נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע וְגוֹ׳״, מָה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו: ״לָכֵן כֶּאֱכֹל קַשׁ לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ וַחֲשַׁשׁ לֶהָבָה יִרְפֶּה וְגוֹ׳״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמַּחְנִיף לַחֲבֵירוֹ — סוֹף נוֹפֵל בְּיָדוֹ, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל בְּיָדוֹ — נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בָּנָיו, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בָּנָיו — נוֹפֵל בְּיַד בֶּן בְּנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא [לַחֲנַנְיָה] אָמֵן כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה ה׳ יָקֵם ה׳ אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי הוּא בְּשַׁעַר בִּנְיָמִן וְשָׁם בַּעַל פְּקִדֻת וּשְׁמוֹ יִרְאִיָּה בֶּן שֶׁלֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה וַיִּתְפֹּשׂ אֶת יִרְמְיָהוּ הַנָּבִיא לֵאמֹר אֶל הַכַּשְׂדִּים אַתָּה נֹפֵל. וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יִרְמְיָהוּ שֶׁקֶר אֵינֶנִּי נֹפֵל אֶל הַכַּשְׂדִּים וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְיִתְפֹּשׂ יִרְמְיָהוּ וַיְבִאֵהוּ אֶל הַשָּׂרִים״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל עֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲנוּפָּה — מְאוּסָה כְּנִדָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עֲדַת חָנֵף גַּלְמוּד״, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְנִדָּה גַּלְמוּדָה. מַאי ״גַּלְמוּדָה״ — גְּמוּלָה מִבַּעְלָהּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל עֵדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ חֲנוּפָּה — לְסוֹף גּוֹלָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי עֲדַת חָנֵף גַּלְמוּד״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְאָמַרְתְּ בִּלְבָבֵךְ מִי יָלַד לִי אֶת אֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי שְׁכוּלָה וְגַלְמוּדָה גֹּלָה וְסוּרָה וְגוֹ׳״.
It is stated in the mishna that King Agrippa read from the Torah while standing, and the Sages praised him for this. The Gemara asks: From the fact that they praised him, can it be concluded that he acted appropriately? Didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says with regard to a Nasi who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15). This is interpreted to mean that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah establishes that awe is an essential component of kingship, and it is not the prerogative of the king to relinquish it. The Gemara answers: Since he relinquished his honor for the sake of a mitzva, this situation is different and does not dishonor him. The mishna continues: And when Agrippa arrived at the verse: “You may not appoint a foreigner over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), tears flowed from his eyes because he was a descendant of the house of Herod and was not of Jewish origin. The entire nation said to him: You are our brother. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: At that moment the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people, were sentenced to destruction for flattering Agrippa. Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta says: From the day that the power of flattery prevailed, the judgment has become corrupted, and people’s deeds have become corrupted, and a person cannot say to another: My deeds are greater than your deeds, as everyone flatters one another and people no longer know the truth. Rabbi Yehuda of the West, Eretz Yisrael, and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated concerning the future: “The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble” (Isaiah 32:5). By inference, this indicates that in this world it is permitted to flatter them. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that this can be proven from here. Jacob said to Esau: “I have seen your face, as one sees the face of angels, and you were pleased with me” (Genesis 33:10). Jacob flattered him by comparing seeing him to seeing a divine vision. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in interpreting Jacob’s statement, disagrees with Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: With regard to the interaction between Jacob and Esau, to what is this matter comparable? To a person who invited another to his home and the guest realized that he wants to kill him. The guest said to him: The flavor of this dish that I taste is like a dish that I tasted in the king’s house. The host then said to himself: The king must know him. Therefore, he was afraid and did not kill him. Similarly, when Jacob told Esau that his face is like the face of an angel, he intended to let him know that he had seen angels, in order to instill fear in him so that Esau would not seek to harm him. Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him brings wrath to the world, as it is stated: “But those with flattery in their hearts bring about wrath” (Job 36:13). And moreover, his prayer is not heard, as it is stated in that same verse: “They do not cry for help when He binds them.” The Gemara cites a mnemonic device for the statements of Rabbi Elazar: Wrath, fetus, Gehenna, in his hands, menstruating woman, exiled. And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him, even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs curse him, as it is stated: “He who says to the wicked: You are righteous, peoples shall curse him [yikkevuhu], nations [leummim] shall execrate him” (Proverbs 24:24); and kov, the linguistic root of the word yikkevuhu, means only a curse, as it is stated: Balaam explained that he did not curse the Jewish people, as he said: “How can I curse [ekkov] whom God has not cursed [kabbo]?” (Numbers 23:8). And le’om is homiletically interpreted to mean only fetuses, as it is stated with regard to Jacob and Esau, when they were still in Rebecca’s womb: “And one people [le’om] shall be stronger than the other people [le’om]” (Genesis 25:23). And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). What is written afterward? “Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours straw, and as the chaff is consumed by the flame” (Isaiah 5:24), meaning that the people described in the earlier verse will end up burning like straw in the fires of Gehenna. And Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who flatters another ultimately falls into his hands. And if he does not fall into his hands, he falls into his children’s hands. And if he does not fall into his children’s hands, he falls into his grandchild’s hands, as it is stated: “Then the prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah…Amen, the Lord should do so, the Lord should perform your words” (Jeremiah 28:5–6). This was a form of flattery, as Jeremiah did not explicitly say that Hananiah was a false prophet. And it is written: “And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he laid hold on Jeremiah the prophet, saying: You shall fall to the Chaldeans. Then Jeremiah said: It is false; I shall not fall to the Chaldeans” (Jeremiah 37:13–14). And it is then written: “So Irijah laid hold on Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes” (Jeremiah 37:14). Irijah was the grandson of Hananiah, and Jeremiah was punished by falling into his hands because he had flattered his grandfather. And Rabbi Elazar says: Any congregation in which there is flattery is as repulsive as a menstruating woman, as it is stated: “For a flattering congregation shall be desolate [galmud]” (Job 15:34), and in the cities overseas they call a menstruating woman galmuda. What is the meaning of the word galmuda? It means separated [gemula] from her husband [mibbala]. And Rabbi Elazar says: Any congregation in which there is flattery is ultimately exiled. It is written here: “For a flattering congregation shall be desolate [galmud]” (Job 15:34), and it is written there: “Then you will say in your heart: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have been bereaved of my children, and am solitary [galmuda], an exile, and wandering?” (Isaiah 49:21). The verse states: “An exile,” as an appositive to “galmuda,” indicating that they are the same.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַרְבַּע כִּיתּוֹת אֵין מְקַבְּלוֹת פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה: כַּת לֵיצִים, וְכַת חֲנֵיפִים, וְכַת שַׁקָּרִים, וְכַת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. כַּת לֵיצִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״מָשַׁךְ יָדוֹ אֶת לֹצְצִים״. כַּת חֲנֵיפִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא לְפָנָיו חָנֵף יָבוֹא״. כַּת שַׁקָּרִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי״. כַּת מְסַפְּרֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגֻרְךָ רָע״, צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ — לֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע.
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: Four classes of people will not greet the Divine Presence: The class of cynics, and the class of flatterers, and the class of liars, and the class of slanderers. The proof for this statement is as follows: The class of cynics, as it is written: “He draws His hand from cynics” (Hosea 7:5), i.e., God does not want to be in their presence; the class of flatterers, as it is written: “That a flatterer cannot come before Him” (Job 13:16); the class of liars, as it is written: “He who speaks falsehood shall not dwell before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7). The class of slanderers will not greet the Divine Presence, as it is written: “For You are not a god who has pleasure in wickedness, evil shall not sojourn with You” (Psalms 5:5), which means: You, the Lord, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your dwelling place. “Evil” here is referring to slanderers, as is evident from the continuation of the chapter, which states: “For there is no sincerity in their mouth; their inward part is a yawning gulf, their throat is an open tomb, they make smooth their tongue” (Psalms 5:10).
״וְאָמַר אֲלֵיהֶם שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַאי שְׁנָא ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, אָמַר לָהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא קִיַּימְתֶּם אֶלָּא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית — אִי אַתֶּם נִמְסָרִין בְּיָדָם.
§ The Torah says about the priest anointed for war: “And he shall say to them: Hear Israel” (Deuteronomy 20:3). The Gemara asks: What is different in this setting that necessitates the usage of the phrase: “Hear Israel”? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: Even if you have not fulfilled any mitzva except reciting Shema of the morning and the evening, you will not be delivered into the hands of your enemies. As an allusion to this promise, the priest’s address borrows the phrase “Hear Israel,” a phrase most familiar from the beginning of the recitation of Shema.
״וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ הַבֵּינַיִם מִמַּחֲנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי ״בֵּינַיִם״? אָמַר רַב: שֶׁמְּבוּנֶּה מִכׇּל מוּם. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּינוֹנִי שֶׁבְּאֶחָיו. דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא אָמַר: שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי כְּבִנְיַן. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בַּר מְאָה פָּפֵי וַחֲדָא נָאנָאי. ״וְגׇלְיָת שְׁמוֹ מִגַּת״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין אֶת אִמּוֹ כְּגַת. כְּתִיב ״מַעֲרוֹת״, וְקָרֵינַן ״מַעַרְכוֹת״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁהַכֹּל הֶעֱרוּ בְּאִמּוֹ. כְּתִיב ״הָרָפָה״, וּכְתִיב ״עׇרְפָּה״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר: ״הָרָפָה״ שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״עׇרְפָּה״ — שֶׁהַכֹּל עוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ מֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, וְחַד אָמַר: ״עׇרְפָּה״ שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״הָרָפָה״ — שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ כְּהָרִיפוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה וְתִפְרֹשׁ הַמָּסָךְ עַל פְּנֵי הַבְּאֵר וַתִּשְׁטַח עָלָיו הָרִפוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ אֶת הָאֱוִיל בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בַּעֱלִי״.
The verse introduces Goliath: “And a champion [ish habeinayim] went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath” (I Samuel 17:4). The Gemara asks: What is indicated by the term beinayim? Rav said: The word is related to the root beit, nun, heh, meaning build, and means that he is built [muvneh] perfectly and free of any blemish. And Shmuel said: The word is related to the word bein, meaning between, and means that he was the middle [beinoni] among his brothers. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Sheila said: The word is related to the root beit, nun, heh, meaning build, and means that he was made strong as a building [binyan]. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The word is related to the word bein, meaning between, and means that he was born from among many, as follows: He was the son of one hundred fathers [pappi] and one dog [nanai], as his mother engaged in sexual intercourse with one hundred men and a dog, and he was fathered from among them. The verse recounts that he was “named Goliath, of Gath” (I Samuel 17:4). Rav Yosef taught: This is because everyone would thresh his mother by cohabiting with her like people do in a winepress [gat], where everyone tramples. It is written that Goliath came from “the caves [me’arot] of the Philistines” (I Samuel 17:23), but we read, according to the Masoretic text: He came from among “the ranks [ma’arkhot] of the Philistines.” What is meant by the written term me’arot? Rav Yosef taught: The word is related to the word he’era, meaning penetrated, and implies that everyone penetrated [he’eru], i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse with, his mother. It is written that Goliath’s mother was: “Harafa” (II Samuel 21:16), and in another place it is written: “Orpah” (Ruth 1:4), and the Gemara will soon explain that this was the same woman. Rav and Shmuel engaged in a dispute concerning this matter. One of them said: Her name was Harafa, and why is she called by the name Orpah? It is because everyone came at her from behind [orfin] her, i.e., sodomized her. And one of them said: Her name was Orpah, and why is she called by the name Harafa? It is because everyone threshed her like groats [harifot], i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and so it says that this word means groats: “And the woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth, and strewed groats [harifot] thereon” (II Samuel 17:19). And if you wish, you can say from here: “Though you should crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [harifot], yet will not his foolishness depart from him” (Proverbs 27:22).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה״, ״אֲשֶׁר נָטַע״, ״אֲשֶׁר אֵרַשׂ״, לִימְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ: שֶׁיִּבְנֶה אָדָם בַּיִת, וְיִטַּע כֶּרֶם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. וְאַף שְׁלֹמֹה אָמַר בְּחׇכְמָתוֹ: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״. ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה בַּיִת, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה כֶּרֶם, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — זוֹ אִשָּׁה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה מִשְׁנָה, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — זֶה גְּמָרָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — זֶה גְּמָרָא, ״אַחַר וּבָנִית בֵיתֶךָ״ — אֵלּוּ מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״הָכֵן בַּחוּץ מְלַאכְתֶּךָ״ — זֶה מִקְרָא וּמִשְׁנָה וּגְמָרָא, ״וְעַתְּדָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה לָךְ״ — אֵלּוּ מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, ״אַחַר וּבָנִיתָ בֵיתֶךָ״ — דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין: הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית שַׁעַר כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: אִם הוֹסִיף בּוֹ דִּימוֹס אֶחָד — חוֹזֵר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית לְבֵנִים בַּשָּׁרוֹן — לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּחַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ פַּעֲמַיִם בְּשָׁבוּעַ.
§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:20-21): The Torah states: “What man is there that has built” (Deuteronomy 20:5), and then “that has planted” (Deuteronomy 20:6), and finally “that has betrothed” (Deuteronomy 20:7). The Torah has taught a person the desired mode of behavior: A person should build a house, then plant a vineyard, and afterward marry a woman. And even King Solomon said in his wisdom: “Prepare your work outside, and make it fit for yourself in the field; and afterward build your house” (Proverbs 24:27). The Sages explained: “Prepare your work outside”; this is a house. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is a vineyard. “And afterward you shall build your house”; this is a wife. Alternatively, this verse may be understood as relating to Torah study: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is the study of Mishna. “Afterward you shall build your house”; this is the study of Gemara, the analysis of and deliberation over the statements of the Sages. Alternatively: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible and Mishna. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; this is the study of Gemara. “Afterward you shall build your house”; these are good deeds. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: “Prepare your work outside”; this is the study of Bible, and Mishna, and Gemara. “And make it fit for yourself in the field”; these are good deeds. “Afterward you shall build your house”; expound upon new understandings of Torah and receive reward, which is possible only after the initial steps. § The mishna teaches: And these are the men who do not return from the ranks: One who builds a gateway, or an enclosed veranda, or a balcony…Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who rebuilds a house as it stood originally would not return. A Sage taught (Tosefta 7:18): If one adds one additional row of stones [dimos] to the original structure, he returns from the ranks. That is enough to render it a new building. The mishna further teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who builds a new brick house in the Sharon would not return. A Sage taught: This is because the owners renew it twice in a period of seven years, and it is therefore not considered a permanent structure.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָאִין חָלָה אֱלִישָׁע: אֶחָד שֶׁגֵּירָה דּוּבִּים בַּתִּינוֹקוֹת, וְאֶחָד שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע חָלָה אֶת חׇלְיוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בּוֹ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת, לֹא כֶּאֱלִישָׁע שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְגֵחֲזִי בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וְלֹא כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה שֶׁדְּחָפוֹ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי מִתַּלְמִידָיו בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. אֱלִישָׁע מַאי הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר נַעֲמָן הוֹאֵל קַח כִּכָּרָיִם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֹא לִבִּי הָלַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ אִישׁ מֵעַל מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ לִקְרָאתֶךָ הַעֵת לָקַחַת אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְלָקַחַת בְּגָדִים וְזֵיתִים וּכְרָמִים וְצֹאן וּבָקָר וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחוֹת״. וּמִי שָׁקֵיל כּוּלֵּי הַאי? כֶּסֶף וּבְגָדִים הוּא דְּשָׁקֵיל! אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הָיָה אֱלִישָׁע עוֹסֵק בִּשְׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים, אָמַר לוֹ: רָשָׁע, הִגִּיעַ עֵת לִיטּוֹל שְׂכַר שְׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים. ״וְצָרַעַת נַעֲמָן תִּדְבַּק בְּךָ וּבְזַרְעֲךָ לְעוֹלָם״. ״וְאַרְבָּעָה אֲנָשִׁים הָיוּ מְצֹרָעִים״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זֶה גֵּחֲזִי וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת בָּנָיו. ״וַיָּבֹא אֱלִישָׁע דַּמֶּשֶׂק״. לָמָּה הָלַךְ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁהָלַךְ לְהַחְזִירוֹ לְגֵחֲזִי בִּתְשׁוּבָה, וְלֹא חָזַר. אָמַר לוֹ: חֲזוֹר בָּךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִמְּךָ, כׇּל מִי שֶׁחָטָא וְהֶחְטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים — אֵין מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. מַאי עֲבַד? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֶבֶן שׁוֹאֶבֶת תָּלָה לוֹ לְחַטַּאת יָרָבְעָם, וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ בֵּין שָׁמַיִם לָאָרֶץ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שֵׁם חֲקַק לַהּ אַפּוּמַּהּ, וְהָיְתָה אוֹמֶרֶת ״אָנֹכִי״ וְ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ״. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבָּנַן דְּחָה מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְנֵי הַנְּבִיאִים אֶל אֱלִישָׁע הִנֵּה נָא הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ יֹשְׁבִים שָׁם לְפָנֶיךָ צַר מִמֶּנּוּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא לָא הֲוָה דְּחִיק. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה מַאי הִיא — כְּדַהֲוָה קָא קָטֵיל יַנַּאי מַלְכָּא לְרַבָּנַן, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח (אַטְמִינֵהוּ) [אַטְמַרְתֵּיהּ] אֲחָתֵיהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אֲזַל עֲרַק לַאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם. כִּי הֲוָה שְׁלָמָא, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח: מִנַּי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עִיר הַקּוֹדֶשׁ לִךְ אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם: אֲחוֹתִי! בַּעֲלִי שָׁרוּי בְּתוֹכֵךְ, וַאֲנִי יוֹשֶׁבֶת שׁוֹמֵמָה! אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ שְׁלָמָא. כִּי אֲתָא, אִקְּלַע לְהָהוּא אוּשְׁפִּיזָא, קָם קַמַּיְיהוּ בִּיקָרָא שַׁפִּיר, עָבְדִי לֵיהּ יְקָרָא טוּבָא, יָתֵיב וְקָא מִשְׁתַּבַּח: כַּמָּה נָאָה אַכְסַנְיָא זוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי: רַבִּי, עֵינֶיהָ טְרוּטוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָשָׁע, בְּכָךְ אַתָּה עוֹסֵק? אַפֵּיק אַרְבַּע מְאָה שִׁפּוּרֵי וְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. כׇּל יוֹמָא אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ וְלָא קַבְּלֵיהּ. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָרֵי קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ. הֲוָה בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ לְקַבּוֹלֵיהּ, אַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, סְבַר מִדְחָא דָּחֵי לֵיהּ, אֲזַל זְקַף לְבֵינְתָּא פַּלְחַאּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזוֹר בָּךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִמְּךָ, כׇּל הַחוֹטֵא וּמַחְטִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים — אֵין מַסְפִּיקִין בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. דְּאָמַר מָר: יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי כִּישֵּׁף וְהִסִּית וְהִדִּיחַ וְהֶחְטִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: יֵצֶר, תִּינוֹק, וְאִשָּׁה — תְּהֵא שְׂמֹאל דּוֹחָה וְיָמִין מְקָרֶבֶת.
§ The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill three times. One was a punishment for inciting the bears to attack the children; and one was a punishment for pushing Gehazi away with both hands, without leaving him the option to return; and one was the sickness from which he died, as an expression of illness is stated three times in the verse about Elisha: “And Elisha became sick [ḥala] with his illness [ḥolyo] from which he would die” (II Kings 13:14). The root ḥet, lamed, heh, which indicates illness, is used twice in this verse, and it is stated once that Elisha will die. The Sages taught: It should always be the left, weaker, hand that pushes another away and the right, stronger, hand that draws him near. In other words, even when a student is rebuffed, he should be given the opportunity to return. This is not like Elisha, who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, away with both hands. The Gemara specifies: What was that incident with Elisha? As it is written: “And Naaman said: Pray, take talents” (II Kings 5:23). Naaman offered Gehazi payment for the help Elisha had given him, and when the verse recounts Elisha’s words to Gehazi, it is written: “And he said to him: Did not my heart go, when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to take money, and to take garments, and olives, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and servants, and maidservants?” (II Kings 5:26). Here Elisha criticizes Gehazi for taking the payment. The Gemara clarifies the criticism: And did he take all that? But it was only money and garments that he took. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: At that time, Elisha was engaged in the study of the topic of the eight impure creeping animals. He said to Gehazi: Wicked one, it is time for you to receive now, in this temporal world, the reward for studying the topic of the eight impure creeping animals. This is why the verse lists eight items. The Gemara adds parenthetically that Elisha also said to Gehazi: “And the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your descendants forever” (II Kings 5:27), and that the verse later states: “Now there were four leprous men” (II Kings 7:3), about whom Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to Gehazi and his three sons. The verse states: “And Elisha came to Damascus” (II Kings 8:7). The Gemara asks: For what purpose did he go there? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He went to help Gehazi in repentance, but Gehazi would not agree to repent from his evil ways. Elisha said to him: Return from your sins. Gehazi said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Whoever sins and caused the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. The Gemara asks: What did Gehazi do that caused the masses to sin? There are those who say that he hung a magnetic rock on Jeroboam’s calf, the golden calf that Jeroboam established as an idol, and used a magnet to pull the calf off the ground so that he suspended it between heaven and earth, i.e., caused it to hover above the ground. This seemingly miraculous occurrence caused the people to worship it even more devoutly. And there are those who say: He engraved the sacred name on its mouth, and it would say: “I am the Lord your God” and: “You shall not have other gods” (Exodus 20:2). The idol would quote the two prohibitions from the Ten Commandments against idol worship, causing people to worship it even more devoutly. And there are those who say: Gehazi pushed the Sages away from coming before him, preventing them learning from Elisha, as it is written, after the aforementioned incident: “And the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, behold this place where we are staying before you is too cramped for us” (II Kings 6:1). This proves by inference that until that time the place was not cramped, as Gehazi would turn people away. The Gemara returns to the incident in which Yehoshua ben Peraḥya turned away Jesus the Nazarene: What is this incident? When King Yannai was killing the Sages, Shimon ben Shataḥ was hidden by his sister, Yannai’s wife, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya went and fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made between Yannai and the Sages, Shimon ben Shataḥ sent him the following letter: From myself, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt. My sister, my husband dwells within you, and I am sitting desolate. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: I can learn from it that there is peace, and I can return. When he came back to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yehoshua arrived at a certain inn. The innkeeper stood before him, honoring him considerably, and overall they accorded him great honor. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then sat and was praising them by saying: How beautiful is this inn. Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, said to him: My teacher, but the eyes of the innkeeper’s wife are narrow [terutot]. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said to him: Wicked one, is this what you are engaged in, gazing at women? He brought out four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him. Every day Jesus would come before him, but he would not accept his wish to return. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya was reciting Shema when Jesus came before him. He intended to accept him on this occasion, so he signaled to him with his hand to wait. Jesus thought he was rejecting him entirely. He therefore went and stood up a brick and worshipped it as an idol. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said to him: Return from your sins. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Anyone who sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. The Gemara explains how he caused the masses to sin: For the Master said: Jesus the Nazarene performed sorcery, and he incited the masses, and subverted the masses, and caused the Jewish people to sin. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to the evil inclination, to a child, and to a woman, the left hand should reject and the right hand should welcome. If one pushes too forcefully, the damage might be irreversible.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרוֹצְחָנִין — בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה. מִשֶּׁבָּא אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן דִּינַאי, וּתְחִינָּה בֶּן פְּרִישָׁה הָיָה נִקְרָא, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתוֹ ״בֶּן הָרַצְחָן״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַמְנָאֲפִים — פָּסְקוּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הִפְסִיקָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֶפְקוֹד עַל בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תִזְנֶינָה וְעַל כַּלּוֹתֵיכֶם כִּי תְנָאַפְנָה כִּי הֵם וְגוֹ׳״. מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בָּטְלוּ הָאֶשְׁכֹּלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵין אֶשְׁכּוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל בִּכּוּרָה אִוְּתָה נַפְשִׁי״, יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַית הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אַף הוּא בִּטֵּל אֶת הַמְעוֹרְרִין וְאֶת הַנּוֹקְפִין. עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַּטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. וּבְיָמָיו אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל עַל הַדְּמַאי. גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נֶעֶרְפָה הָעֶגְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג שֶׁאֵין פּוֹטֶרֶת אוֹתוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא יְכֻפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שֻׁפַּךְ בָּהּ כִּי אִם בְּדַם שֹׁפְכוֹ״.
The mishna further states: From the time when murderers proliferated, the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified. The ritual was performed only when the identity of the murderer was completely unknown. Once there were many known murderers, the conditions for the performance of the ritual were no longer present, as the probable identity of the murderer was known. From the time when Eliezer ben Dinai, who was also called Teḥina ben Perisha, came, they renamed him: Son of a murderer. This is an example of a publicly known murderer. The mishna teaches a similar occurrence: From the time when adulterers proliferated, the performance of the ritual of the bitter waters was nullified; they would not administer the bitter waters to the sota. And it was Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai who nullified it, as it is stated: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they consort with lewd women” (Hosea 4:14), meaning that when the husbands are adulterers, the wives are not punished for their own adultery. From the time when Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yehuda of Jerusalem died, the clusters ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters, as explained in the Gemara, as it is stated: “There is no cluster to eat; nor first-ripe fig that my soul desires” (Micah 7:1). The mishna continues in the same vein: Yoḥanan the High Priest took away the declaration of the tithe. After his time, no one recited the passage about the elimination of tithes that had previously been said at the end of a three-year tithing cycle. He also nullified the actions of the awakeners and the strikers at the Temple. Until his days the hammer of smiths would strike in Jerusalem on the intermediate days of a Festival, but he banned the practice. And furthermore, in his days there was no need to inquire about doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as everyone was careful to tithe.
מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ בַּעֲלֵי הֲנָאָה, נִתְעַוְּתוּ הַדִּינִין וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ הַמַּעֲשִׂים וְאֵין נוֹחַ בָּעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ רוֹאֵי פָנִים בַּדִּין, בָּטַל ״לֹא תָגוּרוּ״, וּפָסַק ״לֹא תַכִּירוּ״, וּפָרְקוּ עוֹל שָׁמַיִם וְנָתְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ לוֹחֲשֵׁי לְחִישׁוֹת בַּדִּין — רָבָה חֲרוֹן אַף בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה הַשְּׁכִינָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״אַחֲרֵי בִצְעָם לִבָּם הֹלֵךְ״ — רַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״הָאוֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב וְלַטּוֹב רָע״ — רַבּוּ ״הוֹי הוֹי״ בָּעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מוֹשְׁכֵי הָרוֹק — רַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים, וְהַתּוֹרָה חוֹזֶרֶת עַל לוֹמְדֶיהָ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הַיְּהִירִים — הִתְחִילוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהִנָּשֵׂא לִיהִירִים, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרֵינוּ רוֹאֶה אֶלָּא לַפָּנִים. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר מָר: הַאי מַאן דְּמִיַּהַר — אֲפִילּוּ אַאִינָשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ לָא מִיקַּבַּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְלֹא יִנְוֶה״, לֹא יִנְוֶה אֲפִילּוּ בַּנָּוֶה שֶׁלּוֹ! מֵעִיקָּרָא קָפְצָה עֲלֵיהּ, לְסוֹף מִיתְּזִיל עֲלַיְיהוּ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מַטִּילֵי מְלַאי עַל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים — רָבָה הַשּׁוֹחַד וְהַטָּיַית מִשְׁפָּט, וּפָסְקָה טוֹבָה. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״מְקַבְּלֵנִי טוֹבָתְךָ״ וּ״מְחַזְּקֵנִי טוֹבוֹתֶיךָ״ — רַבּוּ ״אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״. שְׁפָלִים הוּגְבְּהוּ, וְהַגְּבוֹהִים הוּשְׁפְּלוּ, וּמַלְכוּתָא אָזְלָא וְנָוְלָא. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ צָרֵי עַיִן וְטוֹרְפֵי טֶרֶף — רַבּוּ מְאַמְּצֵי הַלֵּב וְקוֹפְצֵי יָדַיִם מִלְּהַלְווֹת, וְעָבְרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן וְגוֹ׳״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ ״נְטוּיוֹת גָּרוֹן וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת עֵינָיִם״ — רַבּוּ מַיִם הַמָּרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁפָּסְקוּ. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת — נִתְמַעֲטוּ הַיָּמִים וְנִתְקַצְּרוּ הַשָּׁנִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשׂוֹנֵא מַתָּנֹת יִחְיֶה״. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ זְחוּחֵי הַלֵּב — רַבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִילֵּל שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימְּשׁוּ כׇּל צוֹרְכָּן — רַבּוּ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנַעֲשֵׂית תּוֹרָה כִּשְׁתֵּי תוֹרוֹת. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ מְקַבְּלֵי צְדָקָה מִן הַנׇּכְרִי — הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה וְהֵם לְמַטָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנִים וְהֵם לְאָחוֹר. מִשֶּׁמֵּת יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר כּוּ׳. מַאי ״אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אִישׁ שֶׁהַכֹּל בּוֹ. יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַית הַמַּעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ כְּתִיקּוּנוֹ. דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר דְּיָהֲבִי לִלְוִיִּם,
§ The Gemara cites statements similar to those of the mishna. From the time when those who accept benefit from others proliferated, the laws became twisted and deeds became corrupted, and there was no comfort in the world. From the time when those who look at the faces of the litigants in judgment, in order to rule based on the appearance of the litigants, proliferated, the fulfillment of the verse: “You shall not fear the face of any man” (Deuteronomy 1:17), ceased, and the fulfillment of the verse: “You shall not respect faces in judgment” (Deuteronomy 1:17), halted, and they removed the yoke of Heaven from themselves, and placed upon themselves the yoke of flesh and blood. From the time when those who whisper whisperings in judgment, advising judges surreptitiously, proliferated, fierce anger proliferated in Israel, and the Divine Presence departed, because it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1). The Divine Presence that dwells among judges leaves if they judge improperly. From the time when those who are referred to in the verse: “Their heart goes after their covetousness” (Ezekiel 33:31), proliferated, “Those who say to evil good, and to good evil” (Isaiah 5:20) proliferated, i.e., those who treat wicked people as though they were righteous proliferated as a result. From the time when the fulfillment of the verse: “Those who say to evil good, and to good evil,” proliferated, the cry of: Woe, woe, proliferated in the world. There was an increase in troubles that cause people to cry out. From the time when those who show their arrogance by drawing out spittle proliferated, the number of haughty people in general proliferated, and the number of students decreased, as they would say haughtily that there was nothing left for them to learn, and the Torah needs to go around to seek those who study it, as people do not learn of their own initiative. Furthermore, from the time when haughty people proliferated, the daughters of Israel began marrying haughty men, as our generation looks only at the face, i.e., the external aspects of a person, and ignores the inner aspects of a person. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Do women wish to marry arrogant men? But didn’t the Master say: One who is haughty is not even accepted by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5)? “Abides [yinaveh] not” means that even in his abode [naveh], he is not accepted. The Gemara explains: Initially, she jumps at the chance to marry him, because he appears to be a great person to her, but in the end, once she gets to know him, he is demeaned in her eyes. The baraita continues: From the time when there was an increase in those who placed upon homeowners the obligation to designate the profits from merchandise for the upkeep of judges, bribery and corruption of judgment proliferated and good ceased. From the time when those judges and leaders who say: I accept your favor, and: I hold your favor, proliferated, the fulfillment of the verse: “Every man did that which was right in his eyes” (Judges 17:6), proliferated. Lowly ones were raised and lofty ones were lowered, and the monarchy is increasingly on the decline. From the time when misers and those greedy for profit proliferated, those hardened of heart and who closed their hands from lending proliferated, and they transgressed that which is written in the Torah: “You shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your needy brother…Guard yourself in case there is a base thought in your heart…and you do not give him” (Deuteronomy 15:7, 9). From the time when women with “stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes” (Isaiah 3:16) proliferated, the bitter waters of a sota proliferated, as more people were suspected of committing adultery; but they eventually ceased when licentiousness became too widespread. From the time when those who accept gifts proliferated, the days decreased and the years shortened, as it is written: “And he who hates gifts lives” (Proverbs 15:27). From the time when those with boastful [zeḥuḥei] hearts proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel. From the time when the students of Shammai and Hillel who did not serve their Rabbis sufficiently proliferated, dispute proliferated in Israel, and the Torah became like two Torahs. From the time when those who accept charity from gentiles proliferated, the Jewish people were above and they below; the Jewish people ahead and they behind. This last statement is a euphemism; it was the Jewish people that were below and behind, but the Gemara did not want to say so explicitly.
מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִין — בָּטַל הַשִּׁיר מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתָּאוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּשִּׁיר לֹא יִשְׁתּוּ יָיִן וְגוֹ׳״. מִשֶּׁמֵּתוּ נְבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים — בָּטְלוּ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ — בָּטַל הַשָּׁמִיר וְנוֹפֶת צוּפִים, וּפָסְקוּ אַנְשֵׁי אֲמָנָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹשִׁיעָה ה׳ כִּי גָמַר חָסִיד וְגוֹ׳״. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֵין יוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קְלָלָה, וְלֹא יָרַד הַטַּל לִבְרָכָה, וְנִיטַּל טַעַם הַפֵּירוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף נִיטַּל שׁוֹמֶן הַפֵּירוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַטׇּהֳרָה נָטְלָה אֶת הַטַּעַם וְאֶת הָרֵיחַ, הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת נָטְלוּ אֶת שׁוֹמֶן הַדָּגָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַזְּנוּת וְהַכְּשָׁפִים כִּילוּ אֶת הַכֹּל. גְּמָ׳ וּמִמַּאי דְּמִשֶּׁבָּטְלָה סַנְהֶדְרִי כְּתִיב? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״זְקֵנִים מִשַּׁעַר שָׁבָתוּ בַּחוּרִים מִנְּגִינָתָם״.
MISHNA: This mishna continues with the list of items that were nullified. From the time when the Sanhedrin ceased song was also nullified from the places of feasts, i.e., it was no longer permitted to sing at a feast where wine was served, as it is stated: “With song they shall not drink wine” (Isaiah 24:9). From the time when the early prophets died the Urim VeTummim was nullified. From the time when the Second Temple was destroyed the shamir worm ceased to exist and also the sweetness of the honeycomb, as the verse says with regard to the laws of the Torah: “More to be desired are they than gold, indeed, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb” (Psalms 19:11). And men of faith ceased from being among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “Help, Lord, for the pious man is finished; for the faithful fail from among the children of men” (Psalms 12:2). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that Rabbi Yehoshua testified: From the day the Temple was destroyed there is no day that does not include some form of curse. And since then the dew has not descended for blessing, and the taste has been removed from fruit. Rabbi Yosei says: Since then, the fat of fruit has also been removed. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Since then, the lost purity has removed the taste and the aroma from fruit; the tithes that were not separated have removed the fat of the grain. And the Sages say: Promiscuity and witchcraft have consumed it all.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹתֶה בְּאַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי זֶמֶר, מֵבִיא חָמֵשׁ פּוּרְעָנִיּוֹת לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹי מַשְׁכִּימֵי בַבֹּקֶר שֵׁכָר יִרְדֹּפוּ מְאַחֲרֵי בַנֶּשֶׁף יַיִן יַדְלִיקֵם וְהָיָה כִנּוֹר וָנֶבֶל תֹּף וְחָלִיל וָיַיִן מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם וְאֵת פֹּעַל ה׳ לֹא יַבִּיטוּ״, מָה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו: ״לָכֵן גָּלָה עַמִּי מִבְּלִי דָעַת״ — שֶׁגּוֹרְמִין גָּלוּת לָעוֹלָם, ״וּכְבוֹדוֹ מֵתֵי רָעָב״ — שֶׁמְּבִיאִין רָעָב לְעוֹלָם, ״וַהֲמוֹנוֹ צִחֵה צָמָא״ — שֶׁגּוֹרְמִין לַתּוֹרָה שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּכַּח מִלּוֹמְדֶיהָ, ״וַיִּשַּׁח אָדָם וַיִּשְׁפַּל אִישׁ״ — שֶׁגּוֹרְמִין שִׁפְלוּת לְשׂוֹנְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וְאֵין ״אִישׁ״ אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה״, ״וְעֵינֵי גְבֹהִים תִּשְׁפַּלְנָה״ — שֶׁגּוֹרְמִין שִׁפְלוּת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כְּתִיב אַחֲרָיו — ״לָכֵן הִרְחִיבָה שְּׁאוֹל נַפְשָׁהּ וּפָעֲרָה פִיהָ לִבְלִי חֹק וְיָרַד הֲדָרָהּ וַהֲמוֹנָהּ וּשְׁאוֹנָהּ וְעָלֵז בָּהּ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who drinks wine with the accompaniment of four types of instruments brings five types of retribution to the world, as it is stated: “Woe to them who rise early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; who tarry late into the night, until wine inflames them. And the harp and the psaltery, the drum and the pipe and wine, are at their feasts, but they do not regard the work of the Lord” (Isaiah 5:11–12). After listing the sin of those who drink wine with musical accompaniment, the verse states their punishment: What is written afterward? “Therefore, My people have gone into captivity, for want of knowledge” (Isaiah 5:13), meaning that they cause exile to the world; “and their honorable men are famished” (Isaiah 5:13), as they bring famine to the world; “and their multitude are parched with thirst” (Isaiah 5:13), that they cause the Torah, which is compared to water, to be forgotten by those who learn it. “And mankind is bowed down, and man is humbled” (Isaiah 5:15), that they cause the enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He, i.e., God Himself, to be brought down, as “man” in the phrase “and man is humbled” means nothing other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3). The verse continues: “And the eyes of the lofty are humbled” (Isaiah 5:15), that they cause the Jewish people to be brought down. These are the five retributions. And what punishment is written afterward for the people who drank wine with musical accompaniment? “Therefore, the netherworld has enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure, and down goes their glory and their tumult and their uproar, and he who rejoices among them” (Isaiah 5:14). Their punishment is that they shall descend into the netherworld.
שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת הָיוּ מְסוּבִּין בַּעֲלִיַּית בֵּית גּוּרְיָא בִּירִיחוֹ, נִתְּנָה עֲלֵיהֶן בַּת קוֹל מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאָמְרָה: יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁרָאוּי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה עָלָיו, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרוֹ רָאוּי לְכָךְ. נָתְנוּ עֵינֵיהֶם בְּהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן, וּכְשֶׁמֵּת הִסְפִּידוּהוּ: הִי חָסִיד, הִי עָנָיו, תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל עֶזְרָא. וְשׁוּב פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת הָיוּ מְסוּבִּין בַּעֲלִיָּיה בְּיַבְנֶה, נִתְּנָה (לָהֶן) [עֲלֵיהֶן] בַּת קוֹל מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאָמְרָה לָהֶן: יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁרָאוּי שֶׁתִּשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה עָלָיו אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין דּוֹרוֹ זַכָּאִין לְכָךְ, נָתְנוּ עֵינֵיהֶם בִּשְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת, הִסְפִּידוּהוּ: הִי עָנָיו, הִי חָסִיד, תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל הִלֵּל. וְאַף הוּא אָמַר בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ: שִׁמְעוֹן וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל — לְחַרְבָּא, וְחַבְרוֹהִי — לִקְטָלָא, וּשְׁאָר עַמָּא — לְבִיזָּא, וְעָקָן סַגִּיאִין עֲתִידִין לְמֵיתֵי עַל עַמָּא. וְאַף עַל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא בִּקְּשׁוּ לוֹמַר ״הִי חָסִיד הִי עָנָיו״, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה שָׁעָה, שֶׁאֵין מַסְפִּידִין עַל הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בָּטַל הַשָּׁמִיר כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁמִיר שֶׁבּוֹ בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַבַּיִת בְּהִבָּנֹתוֹ אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה״ — הַדְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
For on one occasion the Sages were reclining in the upper story of the house of Gurya in Jericho. A Divine Voice from Heaven was issued to them, and it said: There is one person among you for whom it is fitting that the Divine Presence should rest upon him as a prophet, but his generation is not fit for it; they do not deserve to have a prophet among them. The Sages present directed their gaze to Hillel the Elder. And when he died, they eulogized him in the following manner: Alas pious one, alas humble one, student of Ezra. And again, on another occasion several generations later, the Sages were reclining in an upper story of a house in Yavne, and a Divine Voice from Heaven was issued to them, and said: There is one person among you for whom it is fitting that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, but his generation is not fit for it. The Sages present directed their gaze to Shmuel HaKatan. And when he died, they eulogized him in the following manner: Alas humble one, alas pious one, student of Hillel. And he too, Shmuel HaKatan, said the following statement of divinely inspired prediction at the time of his death: Shimon, i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Yishmael, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, are slated for the sword, and their colleagues for killing, and the rest of the people for plunder, and great troubles are destined to befall the people. The Gemara relates: And they also sought to say about Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, when eulogizing him: Alas pious one, alas humble one, but the moment was disturbed and they could not do so. That is because eulogies are not given for those killed by the monarchy, which was Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba’s fate, in order not to arouse the monarchy’s wrath.
וּפָסְקוּ אַנְשֵׁי אֲמָנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהֵן מַאֲמִינִין בְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פַּת בְּסַלּוֹ וְאוֹמֵר ״מָה אוֹכַל לְמָחָר״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִקְּטַנֵּי אֲמָנָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי מִי בַז לְיוֹם קְטַנּוֹת״ — מִי גָּרַם לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁיִּתְבַּזְבֵּז שׁוּלְחָנָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא — קַטְנוּת שֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינוּ בְּהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רָבָא אָמַר: אֵלּוּ קְטַנֵּי בְּנֵי רִשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁמְּבַזְבְּזִין דִּין אֲבִיהֶם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. אוֹמְרִים לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מֵאַחַר שֶׁאַתָּה עָתִיד לִיפָּרַע מֵהֶן, לָמָה הִקְהֵיתָה שִׁינֵּיהֶם בָּם?
§ The mishna states that from the time when the Second Temple was destroyed men of faith ceased. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are people who believe in the Holy One, Blessed be He, and place their trust in Him in all their ways. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says that whoever has bread in his basket to eat today and says: What shall I eat tomorrow, meaning he does not know how he will acquire bread for tomorrow, he is nothing other than from those of little faith. One must trust in God to provide him with his sustenance. And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For who plunders the day of small things” (Zechariah 4:10)? What caused the table, i.e., the reward, of the righteous to be plundered, meaning wasted, in the future? It was the small-mindedness they possessed. And what is this small-mindedness? That they did not believe in the Holy One, Blessed be He, with a complete faith. Rava said: Who plunders the day of small things? These are the small children of the wicked ones of the Jewish people, who die young, who plunder, i.e., destroy, their fathers’ future judgment. When God sits in judgment of their parents, these children say before Him: Master of the Universe, because You were destined to exact punishment from our fathers in the World-to-Come for their wickedness, why did You blunt their teeth with the death of their children in their lifetimes? In this way, the death of their children atones for the fathers.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בַּר יְבֶרֶכְיָה: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה — רְאוּיִן לִישָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵמָּה הֹלְכִים הָלוֹךְ וְדַבֵּר וְהִנֵּה רֶכֶב אֵשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא דִּיבּוּר, הָא לֵיכָּא דִּיבּוּר — רְאוּיִן לִישָּׂרֵף. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא בַּר יְבֶרֶכְיָה: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת וְאֵין נוֹחִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּהֲלָכָה — אֶחָד מֵת וְאֶחָד גּוֹלֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָנֻס שָׁמָּה רוֹצֵחַ אֲשֶׁר יִרְצַח אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי דַעַת״, וְאֵין דַּעַת אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִדְמוּ עַמִּי מִבְּלִי הַדָּעַת״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה מִתּוֹךְ הַדְּחָק — תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִשְׁמַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַם בְּצִיּוֹן יֵשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם בָּכוֹ לֹא תִבְכֶּה חָנוֹן יׇחְנְךָ לְקוֹל זַעֲקֶךָ כְּשׇׁמְעָתוֹ עָנָךְ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְנָתַן ה׳ לָכֶם לֶחֶם צָר וּמַיִם לָחַץ״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁבִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ מִזִּיו שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״. רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אַף אֵין הַפַּרְגּוֹד נִנְעָל בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יִכָּנֵף עוֹד מוֹרֶיךָ״.
And Rabbi Ile’a bar Yeverekhya says: In the case of two Torah scholars who are walking along the way and there are no words of Torah between them, but they are conversing about other matters, they are deserving of being burned in fire. As it is stated with regard to Elijah and his disciple Elisha: “And it was as they walked along, talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder” (II Kings 2:11). The reason they were not burned by the chariot of fire is that there was speech exchanged between them, which presumably was words of Torah, but if there had been no speech, they would have been deserving of being burned by the chariot. And Rabbi Ile’a bar Yeverekhya says: If there are two Torah scholars who reside in the same city and they are not pleasant to each other with regard to halakha, but are constantly fighting, one of them will die and the other one will be exiled. As it is stated: “That the manslayer might flee there, who slays his neighbor without knowledge” (Deuteronomy 4:42), and “knowledge” means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: With regard to any Torah scholar who engages in Torah study while experiencing the pressure of poverty, his prayer is listened to, as it is stated: “For, O people that dwells in Zion at Jerusalem, you shall weep no more; He will surely be gracious to you at the voice of your cry. When He shall hear, He will answer you” (Isaiah 30:19), and after it is written: “And the Lord shall give you sparse bread and scant water” (Isaiah 30:20). This verse indicates that those who sit and study Torah, that is, the people who dwell in Zion, and eat bread sparingly, will have their prayers answered by God. Rabbi Abbahu says: A Torah scholar who engages in Torah study despite economic pressures is satiated with the glory of the Divine Presence, as it is stated in the same verse, above: “And your eyes shall behold your Teacher.” Rabbi Aḥa, son of Ḥanina, said: Even the concealing partition [pargod] before the Divine Presence is not locked before him, as it is stated: “And your Teacher shall not hide Himself anymore” (Isaiah 30:20).
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֵין וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רָבָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם מְרוּבָּה קִלְלָתוֹ מִשֶּׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּבֹּקֶר תֹּאמַר מִי יִתֵּן עֶרֶב וּבָעֶרֶב תֹּאמַר מִי יִתֵּן בֹּקֶר״, הֵי בֹּקֶר? אִילֵימָא בֹּקֶר דְּלִמְחַר, מִי יָדַע מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא דַּחֲלֵיף. וְאֶלָּא, עָלְמָא אַמַּאי קָא מִקַּיַּים? אַקְּדוּשָּׁה דְסִידְרָא, וְאַ״יְּהֵא שְׁמֵיהּ רַבָּא״ דְּאַגַּדְתָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶרֶץ עֵיפָתָה כְּמוֹ אֹפֶל צַלְמָוֶת וְלֹא סְדָרִים״, הָא יֵשׁ סְדָרִים — תּוֹפִיעַ מֵאוֹפֶל.
§ The mishna states that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, there is no day that does not include some form of curse. Rava says: Each and every day is more cursed than the previous one, as it is stated in the chapter detailing the curses in the book of Deuteronomy: “In the morning you will say, would that it were evening, and in the evening you will say, would that it were morning” (Deuteronomy 28:67). It is unclear which morning the verse means. If we say that in the evening he will wish it would be the following morning, does he know what will be the outcome of the next morning, which would cause him to yearn for its arrival? Rather, it must mean the morning that has passed; that is, in the evening they will pine for the previous morning, because their situation is continuously worsening. The Gemara poses a question: But if everything is deteriorating, why does the world continue to exist? The Gemara answers: By the sanctification that is said in the order of prayers, after the passage that begins: And a redeemer shall come to Israel, which includes the recitation and translation of the sanctification said by the angels, and by the response: Let His great name be blessed, etc., which is recited after the study of aggada. As it is stated: “A land of thick darkness, as darkness itself; a land of the shadow of death, without any order” (Job 10:22). Therefore, it can be inferred from this verse that if there are orders of prayer and study, the land shall appear from amidst the darkness.
מַתְנִי׳ בְּפוּלְמוּס שֶׁל אַסְפַּסְיָינוּס גָּזְרוּ עַל עַטְרוֹת חֲתָנִים וְעַל הָאִירוּס. בְּפוּלְמוּס שֶׁל טִיטוּס גָּזְרוּ עַל עַטְרוֹת כַּלּוֹת, וְשֶׁלֹּא יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ יְווֹנִית. בְּפוּלְמוּס הָאַחֲרוֹן גָּזְרוּ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּצֵא הַכַּלָּה בְּאַפִּרְיוֹן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר, וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּ שֶׁתֵּצֵא הַכַּלָּה בְּאַפִּרְיוֹן בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי מֵאִיר בָּטְלוּ מוֹשְׁלֵי מְשָׁלִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת בֶּן עַזַּאי בָּטְלוּ הַשַּׁקְדָנִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת בֶּן זוֹמָא בָּטְלוּ הַדַּרְשָׁנִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בָּטַל כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא בָּטְלוּ אַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קְטֹנְתָּא פָּסְקוּ חֲסִידִים. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ״קְטֹנְתָּא״ — שֶׁהָיָה קְטֹנְתָּא שֶׁל חֲסִידִים. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בָּטַל זִיו הַחׇכְמָה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן בָּטַל כְּבוֹד הַתּוֹרָה, וּמֵתָה טׇהֳרָה וּפְרִישׁוּת. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן פִּאָבִי בָּטְלָה זִיו הַכְּהוּנָּה. מִשֶּׁמֵּת רַבִּי בָּטְלָ[ה] עֲנָוָה וְיִרְאַת חֵטְא. [גְּמָ׳] תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בּוֹשׁוּ חֲבֵרִים וּבְנֵי חוֹרִין, וְחָפוּ רֹאשָׁם, וְנִדַּלְדְּלוּ אַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה, וְגָבְרוּ בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ וּבַעֲלֵי לָשׁוֹן, וְאֵין דּוֹרֵשׁ וְאֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ וְאֵין שׁוֹאֵל,
MISHNA: In the war [pulemus] of Vespasian the Sages decreed upon the crowns of bridegrooms, i.e., that bridegrooms may no longer wear crowns, and upon the drums, meaning they also banned the playing of drums. In the war of Titus they also decreed upon the crowns of brides, and they decreed that a person should not teach his son Greek. In the last war, meaning the bar Kokheva revolt, they decreed that a bride may not go out in a palanquin inside the city, but our Sages permitted a bride to go out in a palanquin inside the city, as this helps the bride maintain her modesty. The mishna lists more things that ceased: From the time when Rabbi Meir died, those who relate parables ceased; from the time when ben Azzai died, the diligent ceased; from the time when ben Zoma died, the exegetists ceased; from the time when Rabbi Akiva died, the honor of the Torah ceased; from the time when Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa died, the men of wondrous action ceased; from the time when Rabbi Yosei the Small died, the pious were no more. And why was he called the Small? Because he was the smallest of the pious, meaning he was one of the least important of the pious men. From the time when Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai died, the glory of wisdom ceased; from the time when Rabban Gamliel the Elder died, the honor of the Torah ceased, and purity and asceticism died. From the time when Rabbi Yishmael ben Pavi died, the glory of the priesthood ceased; from the time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, humility and fear of sin ceased.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שָׁרוֹ חַכִּימַיָּא לְמֶהֱוֵי כְּסָפְרַיָּא, וְסָפְרַיָּא כְּחַזָּנַיָּא, וְחַזָּנַיָּא כְּעַמָּא דְאַרְעָא, וְעַמָּא דְאַרְעָא אָזְלָא (וְדַלְדַּלָהּ) [וְנָוְולָה], וְאֵין שׁוֹאֵל וְאֵין מְבַקֵּשׁ. עַל מִי יֵשׁ לְהִשָּׁעֵן — עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם. בְּעִקְבוֹת מְשִׁיחָא חוּצְפָּא יִסְגֵּא וְיוֹקֶר יַאֲמִיר. הַגֶּפֶן תִּתֵּן פִּרְיָהּ וְהַיַּיִן בְּיוֹקֶר, וּמַלְכוּת תֵּהָפֵךְ לְמִינוּת וְאֵין תּוֹכַחַת. בֵּית וַועַד יִהְיֶה לִזְנוּת וְהַגָּלִיל יֶחֱרַב, וְהַגַּבְלָן יִשּׁוֹם, וְאַנְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל יְסוֹבְבוּ מֵעִיר לְעִיר וְלֹא יְחוֹנְנוּ, וְחַכְמוֹת סוֹפְרִים תִּסְרַח, וְיִרְאֵי חֵטְא יִמָּאֵסוּ, וְהָאֱמֶת תְּהֵא נֶעֱדֶרֶת. נְעָרִים פְּנֵי זְקֵנִים יַלְבִּינוּ, זְקֵנִים יַעַמְדוּ מִפְּנֵי קְטַנִּים — בֵּן מְנַוֵּול אָב, בַּת קָמָה בְאִמָּהּ, כַּלָּה בַּחֲמוֹתָהּ, אוֹיְבֵי אִישׁ אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ, פְּנֵי הַדּוֹר כִּפְנֵי הַכֶּלֶב, הַבֵּן אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאָבִיו, וְעַל מָה יֵשׁ לָנוּ לְהִשָּׁעֵן — עַל אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.
Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: From the day the Second Temple was destroyed, the generations have deteriorated: Scholars have begun to become like scribes that teach children, and scribes have become like beadles, and beadles have become like ignoramuses, and ignoramuses are increasingly diminished, and none ask and none seek. Upon whom is there to rely? Only upon our Father in Heaven. He also said: In the times of the approach of the Messiah, impudence will increase and high costs will pile up. Although the vine shall bring forth its fruit, wine will nevertheless be expensive. And the monarchy shall turn to heresy, and there will be no one to give reproof about this. The meeting place of the Sages will become a place of promiscuity, and the Galilee shall be destroyed, and the Gavlan will be desolate, and the men of the border shall go round from city to city to seek charity, but they will find no mercy. And the wisdom of scribes will putrefy, and people who fear sin will be held in disgust, and the truth will be absent. The youth will shame the face of elders, elders will stand before minors. Normal family relations will be ruined: A son will disgrace a father; a daughter will rise up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his household. The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog; a son will no longer be ashamed before his father. And upon what is there for us to rely? Only upon our Father in heaven.
וְשֶׁלֹּא יְלַמֵּד אֶת בְּנוֹ יְווֹנִית. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁצָּרוּ מַלְכֵי בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי זֶה עַל זֶה, הָיָה הוּרְקָנוֹס מִבַּחוּץ, וְאַרִיסְטוֹבֻּלוּס מִבִּפְנִים. בְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיוּ מְשַׁלְשְׁלִין דִּינָרִים בְּקוּפָּה, וּמַעֲלִין לָהֶן תְּמִידִים. הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מַכִּיר בְּחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית, לָעַז לָהֶם בְּחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית, אָמַר לָהֶן: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹסְקִים בַּעֲבוֹדָה — אֵין נִמְסָרִין בְּיֶדְכֶם. לְמָחָר שִׁלְשְׁלוּ לָהֶם דִּינָרִים בְּקוּפָּה וְהֶעֱלוּ לָהֶם חֲזִיר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַחֲצִי חוֹמָה, נָעַץ צִפׇּרְנָיו, נִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה. אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: אָרוּר אָדָם שֶׁיְּגַדֵּל חֲזִירִים, וְאָרוּר אָדָם שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד לִבְנוֹ חׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית. וְעַל אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה שָׁנִינוּ: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָא עוֹמֶר מִגַּגּוֹת צְרִיפִים, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם מִבִּקְעַת עֵין סוֹכֵר. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי: בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָשׁוֹן סוּרְסִי לָמָּה? אֶלָּא אִי לְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, אִי לְשׁוֹן יְווֹנִית. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּבָבֶל לְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי לָמָּה? אֶלָּא אוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ, אוֹ לָשׁוֹן פָּרְסִי! לְשׁוֹן יְווֹנִית לְחוּד, וְחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית לְחוּד. וְחׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית מִי אֲסִירָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי מִכֹּל בְּנוֹת עִירִי״ — אֶלֶף יְלָדִים הָיוּ בְּבֵית אַבָּא, חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת לָמְדוּ תּוֹרָה, וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת לָמְדוּ חׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית, וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן אֶלָּא אֲנִי כָּאן, וּבֶן אֲחִי אַבָּא בְּעַסְיָא! שָׁאנֵי שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דִּקְרוֹבִין לַמַּלְכוּת הֲווֹ. דְּתַנְיָא: מְסַפֵּר קוֹמֵי הֲרֵי זֶה מִדַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי. אַבְטוֹלוֹס בֶּן רְאוּבֵן הִתִּירוּ [לוֹ] לְסַפֵּר קוֹמֵי, שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לַמַּלְכוּת. שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִתִּירוּ לָהֶן חׇכְמַת יְווֹנִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּרוֹבִין לַמַּלְכוּת.
§ The mishna taught that during the war of Titus the Sages decreed that a person should not teach his son Greek. The Sages taught that this decree came about as a result of the following incident: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other in their civil war, Hyrcanus was outside of Jerusalem, besieging it, and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box from inside the city, and those on the outside would send up animals for them to bring the daily offerings in the Temple. A certain Elder was there, in Jerusalem, who was familiar with Greek wisdom. He communicated to those on the outside by means of Greek wisdom, using words understood only by those proficient in Greek wisdom. He said to them: As long as they are engaged in the Temple service, they will not be delivered into your hands. Upon hearing this, on the following day, when they lowered dinars in a box, they sent up a pig to them. Once the pig reached halfway up the wall, it inserted its hooves into the wall and Eretz Yisrael shuddered four hundred parasangs. When the Sages saw this, they said at that time: Cursed is the person who raises pigs, and cursed is the person who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And with regard to that year of civil war, in which the land was destroyed, we learned (Menaḥot 64b): An incident occurred in which the omer, the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, came from Gaggot Tzerifim, and the two loaves offered on Shavuot came from the valley of Ein Sokher. It is understood from both the mishna and the baraita that it is prohibited to learn Greek. The Gemara raises a question: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say: In Eretz Yisrael, why should people speak the tongue of Syriac [Sursi], the Aramaic commonly spoken in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, they should speak either in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or in the beautiful tongue of Greek. And Rav Yosef similarly said: In Babylonia, why should they speak in the vernacular tongue of Aramaic? Rather, they should speak either in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or in the tongue of Persian, used by the authorities. The Gemara answers that there is a difference: The Greek tongue is discrete and Greek wisdom is discrete, and the Sages prohibited the latter but not the former. The Gemara poses a question: And is Greek wisdom prohibited? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affected my soul, due to all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were a thousand children in my father’s house, the princes’ household. Five hundred of them learned Torah, and the other five hundred learned Greek wisdom, and there only remained of them, after the bar Kokheva revolt, me, here in Eretz Yisrael, and the son of my father’s brother, who lives in Asia Minor [Asya]. The fact that Rabban Gamliel allowed half of his household to study Greek wisdom indicates that it is permitted. The Gemara answers: The members of the house of Rabban Gamliel are different, as they were close to the monarchy, and therefore had to learn Greek wisdom in order to converse with people of authority. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shabbat 7:1): One who cuts his hair in the komi style, which was the gentile fashion of cutting and wearing the hair, is considered to be acting in the ways of the Amorites, and it is prohibited to act in their way. However, they permitted Avtolos ben Reuven to cut his hair in the komi style, as he is close to the monarchy, and similarly they permitted the house of Rabban Gamliel to study Greek wisdom, because they are close to the monarchy.