Judaism is Always Evolving

Variantly: "And He said: The L-rd came from Sinai": When the L-rd appeared to give Torah to Israel, it is not to Israel alone that He appeared, but to all of the nations. First He went to the children of Esav, and He asked them: Will you accept the Torah? They asked: What is written in it? He answered: "You shall not kill" (Shemoth 20:13). They answered: The entire essence of our father is murder, as it is written (Bereshith 27:22) "And the hands are the hands of Esav." And it is with this that his father assured him (Ibid. 27:40) "And by your sword shall you live." ...There was none among all of the nations to whom He did not go and speak and knock at their door, asking if they would accept the Torah, viz. ... Israel accepted the Torah with all of its explanations and inferences; but the sons of Noach could not even abide by the seven mitzvoth that they did take upon themselves, until they divested themselves of them and ceded them to Israel, wherefore it is written "And he said: The L-rd came from Sinai, etc."

On a related note, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The vocalization of the scribes, and the ornamentation of the scribes, and the verses with words that are read but not written, and those that are written but not read are all halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. .... For example, the word “Euphrates” that is in the phrase “as he went to establish his control over the river Euphrates” (II Samuel 8:3) is not written in the text of the Bible. The same is true for the word “man” that is in the verse “now the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was as if a man inquired of the word of God” (II Samuel 16:23); and for the word “come” that is in the verse “behold, the days come, says the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner” (Jeremiah 31:37); and for “her” that is in the phrase “let her not have escape” (Jeremiah 50:29); unto that is in the verse “it has been told me, all that you have done unto your mother-in-law” (Ruth 2:11); and for “to me” that is found in the passage “and she said unto her: All that you say to me I will do. And she went down to the threshing floor” (Ruth 3:4–5); and for “to me” that is in the verse “he gave me these six measures of barley; for he said to me” (Ruth 3:17). These words are read but not written.And there are words that are written but not read. For example, the word “may” that is in the verse “may God forgive your servant” (II Kings 5:18) appears in the Bible text but is not vocalized.

(11) If, however, a man who is the enemy of another lies in wait and sets upon [the victim] and strikes a fatal blow and then flees to one of these towns,(12) the elders of his town shall have him brought back from there and shall hand him over to the blood-avenger to be put to death;(13) you must show him no pity. Thus you will purge Israel of the blood of the innocent, and it will go well with you.

(14) When one party schemes against another and kills through treachery, you shall take that person from My very altar to be put to death.

(31) You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; [a murderer] must be put to death.

(10)A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.

§ The baraita teaches that one of the questions the court asks of the witnesses is: Did he release himself to death, i.e., did he acknowledge that he is aware that the court imposes capital punishment for murder? The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he must release himself to death? Rava said, and some say it was Ḥizkiyya who said, that the verse states: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6). By referring to the transgressor as dead even before he is executed, the verse indicates that he is not executed until he releases himself to death, by stating that he is aware that he will be executed for his transgression.

Ulla says: From where in the Torah is the obligation of forewarning derived? As it is stated: “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness and she see his nakedness, it is a disgraceful deed and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people” (Leviticus 20:17). One can ask: Is that to say that the matter is dependent on sight? The transgression is engaging in sexual intercourse, not seeing each other. Rather, the meaning of “and see” is: He is not liable until he sees the reason of the matter, that it should be clear to him that he is committing a transgression by having been forewarned....

apply it to the matter of lashes, as forewarning is required for the court to be able to administer lashes.

The school of Ḥizkiyya taught a source for the requirement of forewarning from the verse concerning the court-imposed capital punishment meted out to a murderer, as it is states: “But if a man come intentionally upon his neighbor to slay him with guile” (Exodus 21:14). How do the witnesses know that he acted intentionally? It must be that they forewarned him, and still he acts intentionally.

The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a source for the requirement to forewarn a transgressor from the verse concerning the court-imposed capital punishment meted out to one who commits adultery with a betrothed young woman, as it is stated: “For the matter [devar] that he has humbled his neighbor’s wife” (Deuteronomy 22:24). They make a verbal analogy: For matters involving speech [dibbur], the punishment is given only if the witnesses issued a verbal forewarning.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a source for the requirement to forewarn transgressors from the verse concerning the court-imposed capital punishment meted out to the wood-gatherer on Shabbat in the wilderness, as it is stated: “And they that found him gathering sticks brought him” (Numbers 15:33). By writing “gathering” in the present tense, the verse indicates that they forewarned him, but he is still gathering.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna take for granted the fact that one who caused injury is liable to pay compensation to the injured party? The Merciful One states in the Torah: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24). You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money.The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind. The principle implicit in the mishna is derived from a verbal analogy in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita: Based on the verse: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot” (Exodus 21:24), one might have thought that if one blinded the eye of another, the court blinds his eye as punishment; or if one severed the hand of another, the court severs his hand; or if one broke the leg of another, the court breaks his leg. Therefore, the verse states: “One who strikes a person,” and the verse also states: “And one who strikes an animal,” to teach that just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.And if it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation: The verse states: “And you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die” (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another’s extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.

Although these interpretations are obvious from the study of the Written Law, and they are explicitly mentioned in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moses from Mount Sinai, they are all regarded as halachot from Moses. This is what our ancestors saw in the court of Joshua and in the court of Samuel of Ramah, and in every single Jewish court that has functioned from the days of Moses our teacher until the present age.

The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no ransom must be accepted of him. “And the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it” (Num. 31:33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to live after the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed complete consciousness, and if he himself said, “Pardon my murderer, I have pardoned and forgiven him,” he must not be obeyed. We must take life for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a grown-up person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a fool. For there is no greater sin than this. And he who mutilated a limb of his neighbour, must himself lose a limb. “As he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Lev. 24:20). You must not raise an objection from our practice of imposing a fine in such cases. For we have proposed to ourselves to give here the reason for the precepts mentioned in the Law, and not for that which is stated in the Talmud. I have, however, an explanation for the interpretation given in the Talmud, but it will be communicated vivâ voce. Injuries that cannot be reproduced exactly in another person, are compensated for by payment; “only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exod. 21:19).

Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others.

(25) he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
The lowest of slaves
Shall he be to his brothers.”(26) And he said,
“Blessed be יהוה,
The God of Shem;
Let Canaan be a slave to them.
(27) May God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
And let Canaan be a slave to them.”

(3) and I will make you swear by יהוה, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell,(4) but will go to the land of my birth and get a wife for my son Isaac.”

(1) So Isaac sent for Jacob and blessed him. He instructed him, saying, “You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women.

(3) No one misbegotten shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה; no descendant of such, even in the tenth generation, shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה.(4) No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of יהוה; no descendants of such, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of יהוה,(5) because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt, and because they hired Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse you.—(6) But your God יהוה refused to heed Balaam; instead, your God יהוה turned the curse into a blessing for you, for your God יהוה loves you.—(7) You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live.(8) You shall not abhor an Edomite, for such is your kin. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in that land.(9)Children born to them may be admitted into the congregation of יהוה in the third generation.

(3)Ammonite and Moabite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish, and their prohibition is eternal, for all generations. However, their female counterparts, even the convert herself, are permitted immediately.Egyptian and Edomite converts are prohibited from entering into the congregation only for three generations, both males and females. Rabbi Shimon renders permitted Egyptian and Edomite females immediately. Rabbi Shimon said: The matter may be derived by way of an a fortiori inference: If in a place where the Torah rendered prohibited the males with an eternal prohibition, i.e., Ammonites and Moabites, it rendered permitted the females immediately, then in a place where it rendered prohibited the males for only three generations, i.e., Egyptians and Edomites, is it not right that we should render permitted the females immediately? Rabbi Shimon’s colleagues said to him: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers, we will accept it from you. But if you merely wish to prove your case with an a fortioriinference based on your own reasoning, there is a refutation of your argument. Rabbi Shimon said to them: That is not so. I disagree with your claim that the a fortiori inference can be refuted, but in any case I am stating a halakha handed down to me by my teachers. Mamzerim and the Gibeonites who converted to Judaism in the days of Joshua are prohibited from entering into the congregation and marrying a woman who was born Jewish. Their prohibition is eternal, for all generations, and it applies to both males and females.

As we learned in a mishna: On that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came before the students in the study hall and he said to them: What is my legal status in terms of entering into the congregation of Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman?Rabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Wasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Do Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and, through his policy of population transfer, scrambled all the nations and settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, as it is stated in reference to Sennacherib: “I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And although it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: Anything that parts from a group parts from the majority, and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation.

Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, at three places were Israel warned not to return to the land of Egypt, [as it is written:] for as you saw Egypt today you shall nevermore see them for ever. And the Eternal said to you, you shall never again return on this way. And the Eternal will bring you back to Egypt on ships. In all three cases they returned and in all three cases they fell. One in the days of Sanherib the king of Assyria, [as it is written]: woe on those who descend to Egypt for help. What is written after this? But Egypt is human and not god, and their horses are flesh, etc. And one in the days of Joḥanan the son of the bald; it shall be that the sword which you are fearing, there will reach you. And once in the days of the evil Trajanus.

Not to ever dwell in the land of Egypt, as [Deuteronomy 17:16] states: "Do not ever return on this path again."

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

(16) In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which your God יהוה is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive.(17) No, you must proscribe them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—as your God יהוה has commanded you,

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said it is written (Jud. 11:3): “Jephtah fled because of his brothers and dwelled in the land Good,” that is Hippos. Why is it called “Good”, because it frees from tithes. [ Rebbi Immi asked: Are these not of the taxpayers? Rebbi Immi is of the opinion that taxpayers count as if they were conquered.] For Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Joshua sent three orders to the Land of Israel before they entered the Land: Those who want to evacuate should evacuate, those who want to make peace should make peace, those who want to go to war should go to war. The Girgasites evacuated, believed in the Holy One, praised be He, and went to Africa. (2K. 18:32, Is. 36:17) “Until I come and take you to a land like your Land,” that is Africa. The people of Gibeon made peace, (Jos. 10:1) “… that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel.” Thirty-one kings went to war and fell.

If they do not agree to a peaceful settlement, or if they agree to a peaceful settlement, but refuse to accept the seven mitzvot, war should be waged against them.
All males past majority should be killed. Their money and their children should be taken as spoil, but neither women or children should be killed, as Deuteronomy 20:14 states: 'But the women and the children... take as spoil." 'The children' refer to males below the age of majority.
The above applies to a milchemet hareshut fought with other nations. However, if either the seven nations or Amalek refuse to accept a peaceful settlement, not one soul of them may be left alive as ibid. 20:15-16 states: 'Do this to all the cities that ... are not the cities of these nations. However, from the cities of these nations,... do not leave a soul alive.' Similarly, in regard to Amalek, Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Obliterate the memory of Amalek.'
How do we know that these commands are only referring to those who did not accept a peaceful settlement? Joshua 11:19-20 states: 'There was no city which accepted a peaceful settlement with the children of Israel except the Chivites who lived in Gibeon. All the rest, they conquered in battle. This was inspired by God, Who strengthened their hearts to engage in battle against Israel so that they would be destroyed.' From these statements, we can infer that a peaceful settlement was offered, but they did not accept it.

§ Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Gemara proceeds to interpret more of that passage: “And Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley” (I Samuel 15:5). Rabbi Mani said: This means that Saul strove with God, as it were, concerning the matter of the valley. At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Saul: “Now go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike” (I Samuel 15:3), Saul countered and said: Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person’s body is found and the murderer is unknown, the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, all the more so must I have pity and not take all these Amalekite lives.And he further reasoned: If the men have sinned, in what way have the animals sinned? Why, then, should the Amalekites’ livestock be destroyed? And if the adults have sinned, in what way have the children sinned? A Divine Voice then came forth and said to him: “Do not be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16). That is to say: Do not be more merciful than the Creator Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness. At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg: “Turn around and strike down the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword” (I Samuel 22:18–19), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: “Do not be overly wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17).

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa began: “A wise man judged with a foolish man, he is wrathful or amused, but there is no satisfaction” (Proverbs 29:9) – Rabbi Simon said: Anyone who judges [dan] the fool, he himself is judged. That is what is written: “A wise man judged”; it is not written “judges,” but rather “judged.”
Another matter: “A wise man judged” (Proverbs 29:9) – this is the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “He is wise of heart and mighty of power” (Job 9:4). “With a foolish man” (Proverbs 29:9) – this is Israel, as it is stated: “My people is foolish” (Jeremiah 4:22). “He is wrathful or amused” (Proverbs 29:9) – I have been wrathful but there is no satisfaction; I have been amused, but there is no satisfaction. I have been wrathful at you during the reign of Pekaḥ ben Remalyahu, as it is stated: “Pekaḥ ben Remalyahu killed [in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand in one day]” (II Chronicles 28:6). I have been amused with you during the reign of Amatzyahu, as it is stated: “Amatzyahu took courage, and led his people, and went to the Valley of Salt” (II Chronicles 25:11). What is the Valley of Salt? It is beneath the boulders [kefei] of salt [melaḥ], [or] into the throes [kefuyei] of battle [milḥama]. “The children of Judah captured ten thousand alive, and brought them to the top of the rock, and cast them [from the top of the rock, and all of them were broken]” (II Chronicles 25:12) – at that moment, the Holy One blessed be He said: I decreed death for the descendants of Noah only by sword, and these “brought them to the top of the rock, and cast them…and all of them were broken”? “But there is no satisfaction” – at that moment, the Holy One blessed be He said: What are these doing here? Let them be exiled. When they sinned they were exiled. When they were exiled, Jeremiah began lamenting over them, eikha.

(11) יהוה spoke to Moses, saying:(12) I hereby take the Levites from among the Israelites in place of all the male first-born, the first issue of the womb among the Israelites: the Levites shall be Mine.(13) For every male first-born is Mine: at the time that I smote every [male] first-born in the land of Egypt, I consecrated every male first-born in Israel, human and beast, to Myself, to be Mine, יהוה’s.

(8)A priest precedes a Levite. A Levite precedes an Israelite. An Israelite precedes a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], and a mamzer precedes a Gibeonite, and a Gibeonite precedes a convert, and a convert precedes an emancipated slave. When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. But if there were a mamzer who is a Torah scholar and a High Priest who is an ignoramus, a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes a High Priest who is an ignoramus, as Torah wisdom surpasses all else.

Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all.

Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things. By study, Attentive listening, Proper speech...

(44) Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves.(45) You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property:(46) you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kin, no one shall rule ruthlessly over another.

(1)The commandment of work with a Canaanite slave forever: That we have a Canaanite slave work forever, meaning that we should never manumit him; and he should only go free for [suffering the loss of] a tooth or limb, as it appears in Scripture (Exodus 21:26-27) - or from the main limbs that are similar to them, meaning limbs that do not grow back, as the accepted traditional explanation comes about this (Kiddushin 24a) - as it is stated (Leviticus 25:46) "you shall work them forever." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 38a), "Rav Yehudah said, 'Anyone who manumits his slave is in violation of a positive commandment, as it says, "you shall work them forever."'" And [any] one from all of the [other] nations who was acquired by a Jew as a slave is called a Canaanite slave. But all slaves are attached with the name, Canaan, because Canaan was cursed to be a slave - he and his progeny - forever. And even though this section in which we were commanded to subjugate them is speaking about Canaanites - as it is written (Leviticus 25:44), "from the peoples that surround you may you purchase a slave or maid-servant," and it is written earlier (Leviticus 25:38), "to give to you the Land of Canaan" - it was known to the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that it was not only Canaan and those in their land that were called Canaanite slaves. As the law is the same for all the rest of the nations - that they have the status of a Canaanite slave in every matter.

(12)One may neither adorn a person before selling him on the slave market, nor an animal nor vessels that he seeks to sell. Rather, they must be sold unembellished, to avoid deceiving the buyer.

A man may marry a number of women provided that he has the means to sustain them, and what we find is that the sages gave worthy suggestion that a man marry no more than four women so that he may fulfill his sexual obligation once a month. In a place where they are accustomed to only marry one woman they are not permitted to marry another woman. Note: it is forbidden to marry two women in two places.

RABBEINU GERSHOM DECREED CHEREM for one who marries [another] in addition to his wife, but in regards to a Leverite marriage, he did not decree cherem, and such is also the case with a betrothed woman. Rema: If he doesn't want to marry another, but rather to release her, and this is the rule in any place that a mitzvah would be delayed -- for instance, if he was married to his wife for ten years and she didn't give birth (Mordechai, Perek 'Hacholetz' Rashba siman 280 and Maharam Padua Siman 19). However there are those who disagree and say that Rabbeinu Gershom's decree applies even in a case in which a mitzvah is involved, and even in the case of a Levirite marriage, and one must do Chalitza (see Hagahot Mordechai in Yebamot and Ketubot). And in the case where the first wife is not easily divorceable, e.g. she became mentally infirmed, or the husband is legally allowed to divorce her but she won't accept a Get from him, one should be more lenient and allow him to marry another (see Rashb"a). And this case if she is betrothed and neither wants to marry him nor to be released from the betrothal. AND HIS [Rabbeinu Gershom's] DECREE was not unilaterally accepted in all the lands. Rema: Particularly in a plce where it is known that his decree wasn't unilaterally accepted, but basically it applies everywhere. See Section 14 Siman 228 for what one should do if he moved from a place where they are stringent on this ruling to a place where they are more lenient. AND HE ONLY EXTENDED THE DECREE until the end of the 5th centure (i.e. 500 years from when he said it). Rema: In any case, in all of these lands, the decree and the custom stand in their place, and we don't marry two women, and this is a punishable offense, and we force someone who did marry two wives to divorce one of them. And there are those who say that in this day and age, we shouldn't punish one who disobeys this decree because the fifth century [since it was declared] has already passed [and so it is expired], but this is not our custom. There are those who say that one whose wife refuses to accept a Get, he can serve it to her through someone else and then marry another, and this is the custom in some places. And in a place where this is not the custom, one should not be stringent, and a man may marry a second [wife] without divorcing the first.

(5) When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty.(6) The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel.(7) But if that party does not want to take his brother’s widow [to wife], his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.”(8) The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,”(9) his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house!(10) And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”

§ We learned in a mishna there (Bekhorot 13a): The mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza; this applied initially, whenyevaminwould have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva. Now, that they do not have intent for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva, the Sages say: The mitzva of performing ḥalitza takes precedence over the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage.Rav said: Nevertheless, the court does not force a yavam to perform ḥalitza, and if he wishes it is still permitted to consummate the levirate marriage. The Gemara relates: When a yavam and a yevamawould come before Rav, he would say to them: If you want, perform ḥalitza, and if you want, consummate the levirate marriage, as the Merciful One makes the matter dependent upon your will, as it is stated: “And if the man does not wish to take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:7) then he should perform ḥalitza. This implies that the Torah requires him to perform ḥalitza only if he does not wish to consummate the levirate marriage, but if he wishes to do so, then the matter is dependent upon him, and if he wants, he performs ḥalitza, or if he wants, he consummates the levirate marriage.The Gemara notes: And even Rav Yehuda holds that the court does not force a yavam to perform ḥalitza if he wishes to consummate the levirate marriage. ...Rami bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: In later generations they went back to once again saying that the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage takes precedence over the mitzva of performing ḥalitza. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him in wonderment: Could it be that the later generations improved their spiritual level and now intend to consummate the levirate marriage solely for sake of fulfilling the mitzva?The Gemara explains that this does not mean that the later generations improved themselves; rather, initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, and so the mitzva of performing ḥalitza took precedence, and in the end they held in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and so the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage took precedence.As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that one who consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama for the sake of her beauty, or for the sake of marital relations, or for the sake of another matter, e.g., he wishes to inherit her husband’s estate, it is considered as though he encountered a forbidden relation, and I am inclined to view the offspring born from such a union as a mamzer. Since the prohibition against engaging in relations with one’s brother’s wife is overridden only for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva of consummating the levirate marriage, when one does not have the intention to fulfill that mitzva, the baseline prohibition applies, and so any offspring from the union will be mamzerim. The Rabbis say: The Torah states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that he should do so in any case, even if his intentions are not solely for the sake of fulfilling the mitzva.The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught the following baraitathat the Sages taught: The Torah states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5); this is to be considered a mitzva, as initially, before she was married to his brother, she was among all other women who are permitted to him, and then when she married his brother she became forbidden to him, and when his brother died without offspring she reverted from her forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that she would revert to her original permitted status; therefore, the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” to teach that it is in fact a mitzva to do so.Who is the tannawho taught this baraita? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: It is Abba Shaul, and this is what the baraitais saying: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” teaches that it is permitted to engage in intercourse with her only when his intention is to fulfill a mitzva, as initially, before she was married to his brother, she was among all other women who are permitted to him, and so, if he wished, then even for the sake of her beauty he was permitted to marry her, or similarly, if he wished, then even for the sake of marital relations he was permitted to marry her.When she married his brother she became forbidden to him, and when his brother died without offspring she reverted from her forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that she would fully revert to her original permitted status; therefore, the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” to teach that he is permitted to marry her only when his intention is for the mitzva.

If the two of them want to do yibum, we do not allow them to unless it is known that they both have intention to fulfill the mitzvah (Tur in the name of Rabeinu Tam). Some say that if he has another wife, we force him and pressure him until he does chalitzah (Tur in the name of the Sma"g). There are those who say that even if he doesn't have another wife, if the intention isn't for a mitzvah, and she does not want to do yibum, and they are not able to trick him, they force him to do chalitzah.

(12) Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: Any party whose wife has gone astray and broken faith with him,(13) in that another man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself without being forced, and there is no witness against her,(14) but a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about the wife who has defiled herself—or if a fit of jealousy comes over him and he is wrought up about his wife although she has not defiled herself—(15) that party shall bring his wife to the priest. And he shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing.(16) The priest shall bring her forward and have her stand before יהוה.(17) The priest shall take sacral water in an earthen vessel and, taking some of the earth that is on the floor of the Tabernacle, the priest shall put it into the water.(18) After he has made the woman stand before יהוה, the priest shall bare the woman’s head and place upon her hands the meal offering of remembrance, which is a meal offering of jealousy. And in the priest’s hands shall be the water of bitterness that induces the spell.

(9) 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...

In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis and what is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, referred to above (45b)? As it is taught in a baraita: How does the case of defamation proceed? It involves a situation where the husband came to the court and said to the father: So-and-so, I have not found indications of your daughter’s virginity. If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita, as this last statement is very surprising: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, does she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is punished by stoning. The Gemara explains that this is what the tannasaid: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, she is liable to receive the punishment of stoning. However, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset, before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.The Gemara resumes its quotation of the baraita: If it was discovered that the bad name is not a bad name, i.e., the husband’s accusation was false, he is flogged and gives her father one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse with her or whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: These matters were stated only in a case where he had intercourse with his wife before defaming her.

One might have thought even if she is unmarried and she engaged in promiscuous intercourse she should be executed by burning. This is incorrect, as here it is stated: “Her father,” and there it is stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery: “Because she has done a depraved thing in Israel, to play the harlot in the house of her father” (Deuteronomy 22:21). Just as there, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband, so too here, the reference is to the promiscuous intercourse of one who has a bond to a husband.

you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.

THEN THOU SHALT CUT OFF HER HAND. If she does not pay ransom money. Its meaning is similar to eye for eye (Ex. 21:24).

..."From what is said, 'Do not withhold your eyes,' we know that in this punishment there is an element of cruelty, and it does not escape the attention of the Giver of the Torah, contrary to what some may say, that the early days were not as good as those in terms of the sense of good and evil, moral sensitivity, and that there were things that were not considered shameful among them. And we feel the deficiency in what they contain. And likewise, in every place where it is written 'Do not withhold your eyes' or 'Do not have pity' or 'Do not cover,' or similar expressions, their meaning is yes, even though it may seem to you that it is not in accordance with the attribute of mercy. With all this, He did it. Where, my son, for I am the one who speaks, the Creator, the Overseer, and the Judge. And who can show more compassion and mercy than me?"

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita, which relates to the case of a woman who, during a fight between her husband and another man, grabs the other man’s genitals: The verse that states: “Then you shall cut off her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:12), should not be taken literally; rather, it is referring to monetary restitution. What, is it not referring to a case where she cannot save her husband from his attacker by a means other than grabbing the attacker’s genitals, and nevertheless she is punished? This indicates that one may not take justice into his own hands. The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to a case where she can save him by other means. Otherwise she is exempt from paying restitution.The Gemara asks: But if she cannot save him by other means, is it possible that she is exempt? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of that baraita that the expression mentioned in the previous verse: “And extended her hand” (Deuteronomy 25:11), excludes an emissary of the court, who is authorized to act in this manner and is therefore exempt from paying restitution, let the baraitadistinguish and teach within the case under discussion in the verse itself, as follows: In what case is this statement that the wife is liable said? It is in a case where she can save her husband by another means. But if she cannot save him by other means, she is exempt.The Gemara answers: That is also what the baraitais saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where she can save him by other means. But if she cannot save him by other means, her hand is rendered like an emissary of the court, and she is exempt.

(Devarim 25:12) "Then you shall cut off her hand": We are hereby taught that you are obligated to rescue him (from her). Whence is it derived that if you are not able to rescue him by (cutting off) her hand, you must rescue him by her soul (i.e., by killing her)? From "you shall have no pity."

(4) When a guilty woman drinks she does not manage to finish drinking before her face turns green and her eyes bulge, and her skin becomes full of protruding veins, and the people standing in the Temple say: Remove her, so that she does not render the Temple courtyard impure by dying there. The mishna limits the scope of the previous statement: If she has merit, it delays punishment for her and she does not die immediately. There is a merit that delays punishment for one year, there is a larger merit that delays punishment for two years, and there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. 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 she has delayed punishment for her. Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity [tiflut].Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desires to receive the amount of a kav of food and a sexual relationship [tiflut] rather than to receive nine kav of food and abstinence. He would say: A foolish man of piety, and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman [perusha], and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world.

A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death? He said to her, the wisdom of a woman is only in her spinning rod, as is written: “All wise women span with their hands.” His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year. He answered him: May the words of the Torah be burned and not be delivered to women!

(13) A woman who studies Torah will receive reward. However, that reward will not be [as great] as a man's, since she was not commanded [in this mitzvah]. Whoever performs a deed which he is not commanded to do, does not receive as great a reward as one who performs a mitzvah that he is commanded to do.
Even though she will receive a reward, the Sages commanded that a person should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women cannot concentrate their attention on study, and thus transform the words of Torah into idle matters because of their lack of understanding.
[Thus,] our Sages declared: "Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is like one who teaches her tales and parables." This applies to the Oral Law. [With regard to] the Written Law: at the outset, one should not teach one's daughter. However, if one teaches her, it is not considered as if she was taught idle things.

(31) Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits, to be defiled by them: I יהוה am your God.

(10) Let no one be found among you who consigns a son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer,(11) one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead.(12) For anyone who does such things is abhorrent to יהוה, and it is because of these abhorrent things that your God יהוה is dispossessing them before you.(13) You must be wholehearted with your God יהוה.(14) Those nations that you are about to dispossess do indeed resort to soothsayers and augurs; to you, however, your God יהוה has not assigned the like.

"Another thing I say, O artist: The Torah says, 'I was the tool of His (God's) artistry,' referring to the fact that the King of Flesh and Blood who builds palaces in this world, does not do so from his own knowledge, but from the knowledge of an artist. And the artist himself does not create from his own knowledge, but rather from his tools and implements, in order to know how to make rooms and carve designs. Similarly, God looked into the Torah and created the world. And the Torah says, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' And there is no beginning except for the Torah. As it says, 'The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way.'" (Proverbs 8:22)

Said Rabbi Simon: Light is written five times here, this corresponds to the five books of Torah. 'God said, “Let there be light” - this corresponds to the book of 'in the beginning', in which the Holy One of Blessing occupied Godself and created His world.

David requested: “And I shall be clear from great transgression” (Psalms 19:14), meaning that my transgression with Bathsheba and Uriah will not be written in the Bible. God said to him: That is impossible. And just as the letter yod that I removed from the name of Sarai, wife of Abraham, when I changed her name to Sarah, was standing and screaming several years over its omission from the Bible until Joshua came and I added the yodto his name, as it is stated: “And Moses called Hosea, son of Nun, Joshua [Yehoshua]” (Numbers 13:16); the entire portion of your transgression, which is fit to be included in the Bible, all the more so it cannot be omitted.

The Gemara stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s suffering came upon him due to an incident. What was that incident that led to his suffering? The Gemara answers that there was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s garment and was weeping. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.

The Gemara explains the statement: And left him due to another incident. One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels [karkushta] lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.

The Gemara cites another baraita related to the scapegoat. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “You shall do My ordinances, and you shall keep My statutes to follow them, I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 18:4), that the phrase: My ordinances, is a reference to matters that, even had they not been written, it would have been logical that they be written. They are the prohibitions against idol worship, prohibited sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and blessing God, a euphemism for cursing the Name of God.

Translation: "Similarly, the way with every claimant of prophecy, if he tells us that God commands you to fast on a certain day, we ask for signs, and when we see them, we believe and fast. However, if he says, 'My God commands you to commit adultery and theft,' or he informs you that the floodwaters will come, or he claims that he created the heavens and the earth in a year without calculation, we do not ask for a sign from him, because we call that which the intellect does not deem fit or a reliable tradition. And some of them have added to this statement and said, 'If he does not oversee us and show us signs and miracles that are evident, what should we say in that case?' We answer them, 'It is said in that case, as it is said regarding someone who shows us signs and miracles regarding the abandonment of that which our intellect perceives as good and the disgrace of falsehood and that which resembles it.' And it is necessary to say [meaning the false prophet] that the disgrace of falsehood and the goodness of righteousness are not from the path of reason, but they are from the path of commandment and warning, and likewise the prohibition of murder, adultery, theft, and the like. Since he moved on to these matters, his burden upon me has been resolved, and I do not need to speak with him regarding them and respond to what brings an accusation against the nullification of the Torah in the verses of the Scripture. I remember them and recall his words in them, and what the response is to them, and their beginning (Deuteronomy 33:2): 'And He said: The Lord came from Sinai, and He shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran, and so on.'"

...

At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings of the philosophers and the Rabbis, one might be inclined to say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagree- ment in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such and of which they say that he who has no longing for them is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers his passion are things which all people commonly agree are evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents, and the like. The prescriptions against these are called commandments (mitzvoth), about which the Rabbis said, (Yoma 67b:8) "If they had not already been written in the Law, it would be proper to add them". Some of our later sages, who were infected with the unsound principles of the Mutakallimun, called these rational laws.

The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.

It is permissible to have a Canaanite slave perform excruciating labor. Although this is the law, the attribute of piety and the way of wisdom is for a person to be merciful and to pursue justice, not to make his slaves carry a heavy yoke, nor cause them distress. He should allow them to partake of all the food and drink he serves. This was the practice of the Sages of the first generations who would give their slaves from every dish of which they themselves would partake. And they would provide food for their animals and slaves before partaking of their own meals. And so, it is written Psalms 123:2: "As the eyes of slaves to their master's hand, and like the eyes of a maid-servant to her mistress' hand, so are our eyes to God."
Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave by our deeds or with words, for the Torah prescribed that they perform service, not that they be humiliated. Nor should one shout or vent anger upon them extensively. Instead, one should speak to them gently, and listen to their claims. This is explicitly stated with regard to the positive paths of Job for which he was praised Job 31:13, 15: "Have I ever shunned justice for my slave and maid-servant when they quarreled with me.... Did not He who made me in the belly make him? Was it not the One who prepared us in the womb?"
Cruelty and arrogance are found only among idol-worshipping gentiles. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e., the Jews whom the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe righteous statutes and judgments, are merciful to all.
And similarly, with regard to the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He commanded us to emulate, it is written Psalms 145:9: "His mercies are upon all of His works." And whoever shows mercy to others will have mercy shown to him, as implied by Deuteronomy 13:18: "He will show you mercy, and be merciful upon you and multiply you."
Blessed be the Merciful One who grants assistance. This concludes the 12th book.

Now to focus directly on the question that was posed concerning the care of a non-Jewish patient on the Sabbath. There was, indeed, a time when the explanation in the Talmud [Avodah Zarah 26a] was fully acceptable. People who were devoted to their religion understood that different religions have different regulations as well as privileges for those who belong to the same faith community. Thus, a Jewish physician, as Abaye explains in the Talmud, could tell a non-Jew: "I may transgress the Sabbath only for those who are Sabbath observers." [This explanation] was fully acceptable to the non-Jew.

The great sage, the Chofetz Chaim, in his Mishnah Berurah 338, criticizes doctors who are Sabbath observers for traveling great distances in order to treat a non-Jew and often compounding their own prescriptions on the Sabbath, as was the custom in Russia. He concludes that they are Sabbath transgressors. This is surely not in consonance with the current social condition. The halachic principle of eivah [i.e., minimizing factors which cause enmity between people] is not based solely on the desire for good human relations within a community. There is a far greater concern that a breakdown in human relations will actually lead to the killing of Jews. Thus, not treating a non-Jew on the Sabbath may very well endanger the lives of other Jews. This is why I find it so difficult to understand the position of the Chofetz Chaim.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.

Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.

Did Moshe learn the whole Torah? It is written “It is longer than the land and wider than the sea” (Iyov 11) and Moshe learned it in forty days?! Rather, Hakadosh Baruch Hu taught Moshe general principles.

1) kal vachomer (a fortiori). 2) gezeirah shavah (Identity). 3a) Binyan av vekathuv echad (a general rule implicit in one verse). 3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). 4) kllal ufrat (general-specific). 5) prat ukllal (specific-general). 6) kllal ufrat ukllal (general-specific-general). 7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general). 8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart). 9) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency). 10) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shelo ke'inyano, yatza lehakel ulehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement foreign to it, departed both for leniency and for stringency). 11) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lidon badavar hechadash, ē ata yachol lehachziro lichllalo ad sheyachzirenu hakathuv lichlallo befeirush. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly). 12a) davar halamed me'inyano (something learned from context). 12b) davar halamed misofo (something learned from its end). 13) shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction).

Thus, Ravina, Rav Ashi, and their colleagues represent the final era of the great Sages of Israel who transmitted the Oral Law. They passed decrees, ordained practices, and put into effect customs. These decrees, ordinances, and customs spread out among the entire Jewish people in all the places where they lived.

After the court of Rav Ashi composed the Talmud and completed it in the time of his son, the Jewish people became further dispersed throughout all the lands, reaching the distant extremes and the far removed islands. Strife sprung up throughout the world, and the paths of travel became endangered by troops. Torah study decreased and the Jews ceased entering their yeshivot in the thousands and myriads, as was customary previously.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded as follows: It is written: “Write you these matters” (Exodus 34:27), and it is written later in that same verse: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters.” How can these texts be reconciled? They mean to teach: Matters that were written you may not express them orally [al peh], and matters that were taught orally you may not express them in writing. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the mitzva recorded in the verse “Write you these matters” is used here in an emphatic sense: These matters, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.