הָא אִיהוּ נָמֵי, ״שֶׁלֹּא תִּיזָּקֵק לְעֵדִים״ קָאָמַר לֵיהּ! לָא סַיְּימוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר לְרַב חִסְדָּא: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִשָּׁם לְכָאן, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״. לֵימָא קָסָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי? וְתִסְבְּרָא?! וְהָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא! אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רַבִּים דְּסָלְקִי וְנָחֲתִי – מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּרַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר בַּר סַמְכָא הוּא? וְעוֹד, הָא אִיהוּ דִּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה: בְּנֵי אָדָם הָעוֹלִין מִשָּׁם לְכָאן, הֵן קִיְּימוּ בְּעַצְמָן: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ (אֶת) הַיֶּלֶד בַּזּוֹנָה וְהַיַּלְדָּה מָכְרוּ בַיַּיִן וַיִּשְׁתּוּ״, וּכְתַב לֵיהּ בְּלָא שִׂירְטוּט; וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁתַּיִם כּוֹתְבִין, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין; בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: שָׁלֹשׁ כּוֹתְבִין, אַרְבַּע אֵין כּוֹתְבִין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּלָא יָדַע הָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, לָאו גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא מִילְּתָא דְתַלְיָא בִּסְבָרָא – לְחַיֵּי; הָא – גְּמָרָא הִיא, וּגְמָרָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ. וְעוֹד, הָא רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר הוּא דְּאַסְכֵּים מָרֵיהּ עַל יְדֵיהּ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו פִּילַגְשׁוֹ״, רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר אָמַר: זְבוּב מָצָא לָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר: נִימָא מָצָא לָהּ. וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָא עָבֵיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָסֵיק בְּפִילֶגֶשׁ בַּגִּבְעָה. וּמַאי קָאָמַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶבְיָתָר בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר, יוֹנָתָן בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּמִי אִיכָּא סְפֵיקָא קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן – זְבוּב מָצָא וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד, נִימָא מָצָא וְהִקְפִּיד. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זְבוּב בַּקְּעָרָה, וְנִימָא בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם; זְבוּב – מְאִיסוּתָא, וְנִימָא – סַכַּנְתָּא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בַּקְּעָרָה; זְבוּב – אוּנְסָא, וְנִימָא – פְּשִׁיעוּתָא.
The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael’s statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him. § The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav Ḥisda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue? The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable. Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition. And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: “And his concubine went away from him” (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima]. And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar. Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage. Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּילֶגֶשׁ בַּגִּבְעָה הֵטִיל עָלֶיהָ בַּעֲלָהּ אֵימָה יְתֵירָה, וְהִפִּילָה כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמֵּטִיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, סוֹף הוּא בָּא לִידֵי שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת: גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְחִילּוּל שַׁבָּת. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: הָא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים צָרִיךְ אָדָם לוֹמַר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה: עִשַּׂרְתֶּם? עֵרַבְתֶּם? הַדְלִיקוּ אֶת הַנֵּר! צָרִיךְ לְמֵימְרִינְהוּ בְּנִיחוּתָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיקַבְּלוּ מִינֵּיהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲנָא לָא שְׁמִיעָא לִי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, וְקִיַּימְתִּיהָ מִסְּבָרָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעוֹלָם אַל יָטִיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם גָּדוֹל הֵטִיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהֶאֱכִילוּהוּ דָּבָר גָּדוֹל. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הֶאֱכִילוּהוּ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! הַשְׁתָּא בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָם, צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֶלָּא בִּקְּשׁוּ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ דָּבָר גָּדוֹל. וּמַאי נִיהוּ? אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי.
Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must say them with calmness so that they will accept instruction from him. Rav Ashi said: I did not hear this statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and yet I fulfilled it through my own reasoning. Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as a great man imposed excessive fear upon his household and they fed him something that carried a great prohibition. The Gemara asks: And who was this individual? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind to say that they actually fed him forbidden food? Now consider that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not cause an error to be performed through the animals of the righteous. With regard to the righteous themselves is it not all the more so? How can you say that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel ate forbidden food? Rather, it means that they sought to feed him something that carried a great prohibition. And what was this? A limb from a living animal. One day the animal they brought him was missing a limb, and as the members of his household were very fearful they severed a limb from a living animal to make his meal appear whole, and he almost ate it.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ מָר עוּקְבָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּנֵי אָדָם הָעוֹמְדִים עָלַי, וּבְיָדִי לְמׇסְרָם לַמַּלְכוּת, מַהוּ? שִׂרְטֵט וּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״אָמַרְתִּי אֶשְׁמְרָה דְרָכַי מֵחֲטוֹא בִלְשׁוֹנִי אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם בְּעוֹד רָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרָשָׁע לְנֶגְדִּי, אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: קָא מְצַעֲרִי לִי טוּבָא, וְלָא מָצֵינָא דְּאֵיקוּם בְּהוּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: ״דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהִתְחוֹלֵל לוֹ״ – דּוֹם לַה׳, וְהוּא יַפִּילֵם לְךָ חֲלָלִים חֲלָלִים; הַשְׁכֵּם וְהַעֲרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְהֵן כָּלִין מֵאֵילֵיהֶן. הַדָּבָר יָצָא מִפִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וּנְתָנוּהוּ לִגְנִיבָא בְּקוֹלָר. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ לְמָר עוּקְבָא: זִמְרָא מְנָא לַן דַּאֲסִיר? שִׂרְטֵט וּכְתַב לְהוּ: ״אַל תִּשְׂמַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל גִּיל בְּעַמִּים״. וְלִישְׁלַח לְהוּ מֵהָכָא: ״בַּשִּׁיר לֹא יִשְׁתּוּ יָיִן יֵמַר שֵׁכָר לְשׁוֹתָיו״! אִי מֵהָהוּא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי זִמְרָא דְמָנָא, אֲבָל דְּפוּמָּא שְׁרֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״קִינָה וְדִימוֹנָה וְעַדְעָדָה״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָתְווֹתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָחָשֵׁיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא דְּמָתְווֹתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָא חָשֵׁיב?! אֶלָּא רַב גְּבִיהָא מֵאָרַגִּיזָא אָמַר בָּהּ טַעְמָא: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִנְאָה עַל חֲבֵירוֹ וְדוֹמֵם, שׁוֹכֵן עֲדֵי עַד עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ דִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״צִקְלָג וּמַדְמֵנָה וְסַנְסַנָּהּ״ הָכִי נָמֵי?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הֲוָה רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי אָרַגִּיזָא הָכָא, הֲוָה אָמַר בָּהּ טַעְמָא. רַב אַחָא מִבֵּי חוֹזָאָה אָמַר בַּהּ הָכִי: כָּל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צַעֲקַת לְגִימָא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְדוֹמֵם, שׁוֹכֵן בַּסְּנֶה עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ דִּין.
§ After mentioning letters sent from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and the issue of scoring parchment, the Gemara relates: Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, sent a letter to Rabbi Elazar, who was in Eretz Yisrael, in which the following was written: With regard to people who stand over and torment me, and I have the power to deliver them into the hands of the government, what is the halakha? May I hand them over to the authorities or not? Rabbi Elazar scored parchment and wrote to him the following verse: “I said: I will take heed to my ways, that I do not sin with my tongue; I will keep a curb upon my mouth, while the wicked is before me” (Psalms 39:2). Rabbi Elazar quoted this verse to allude to the following response: Even though “the wicked is before me,” “I will keep a curb upon my mouth.” Mar Ukva sent word to him again: They are tormenting me a great deal and I cannot stand them. Rabbi Elazar sent to him in response: “Resign yourself to the Lord, and wait patiently [hitḥolel] for Him; do not fret yourself because of he who prospers in his way, because of the man who brings wicked devices to pass” (Psalms 37:7). This verse indicates: “Resign yourself to the Lord,” i.e., do not do anything, and He will strike them down as many corpses [ḥalalim]. Rise before and stay later than them in your visits to the study hall, and they will disappear on their own. The Gemara relates: The matter emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Elazar, and Geneiva, Mar Ukva’s tormentor, was placed in a neck iron [kolar], as one sentenced by the government. The Gemara further relates: They sent the following question to Mar Ukva: From where do we derive that song is forbidden in the present, following the destruction of the Temple? He scored parchment and wrote to them: “Rejoice not, O Israel, to exultation, like the peoples” (Hosea 9:1). The Gemara asks: And let him send them a response from here: “They do not drink wine with a song; strong drink is bitter to them who drink it” (Isaiah 24:9), indicating that song is no longer allowed. The Gemara answers: If he had answered by citing that verse, I would say that this matter applies only to instrumental music, in accordance with the previous verse: “The mirth of tabrets ceases, the noise of them who rejoice ends, the joy of the harp ceases” (Isaiah 24:8); however, vocal song is permitted. Therefore, Mar Ukva teaches us that all types of song are forbidden. In connection to the incident in which Mar Ukva was instructed not to take revenge against his tormentors, the Gemara relates similar discussions. Rav Huna bar Natan said to Rav Ashi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Kina, and Dimonah, and Adadah” (Joshua 15:22)? He said to him: The verse is listing the cities of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Huna said to him: Is that to say that you think I don’t know that the verse is listing the cities of Eretz Yisrael? This is certainly the straightforward meaning of the verse. Rather, Rav Geviha from Argiza said an explanation of this verse, suggesting that it is an allusion to the following idea: Anyone who harbors jealousy [kina] toward another, and yet remains silent [domem], He who dwells for all eternity [adei ad] performs judgment on his behalf. Rav Ashi said to him: If that is so, you should also expound the verse: “Ziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah” (Joshua 15:31), in a similar manner. Rav Huna said to him: If Rav Geviha from Bei Argiza was here, he would say an explanation for it. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa from Bei Ḥoza’a said this about that verse: Anyone who has a complaint against another over a sip [tza’akat legima], i.e., he has a claim that someone did not give him food, and remains silent [domem], the One who dwells in the burning bush [seneh] performs judgment on his behalf.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי – פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה, וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר.
MISHNA: Any document that has a Samaritan witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.
דְּתַנְיָא: מַצַּת כּוּתִי – מוּתֶּרֶת, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹסֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין בְּדִקְדּוּקֵי מִצְוֹת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בָּהּ כּוּתִים – הַרְבֵּה מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ, יוֹתֵר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 1:15): The matza of a Samaritan is permitted on Passover, as there is no concern that it might be leaven, and a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with it. Rabbi Elazar prohibits the consumption of the matza of a Samaritan because the Samaritans are not well-versed in the details of mitzvot. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: On the contrary, with regard to any mitzva that the Samaritans embraced and accepted, they are more exacting in its observance than are Jews.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם – כְּשֵׁירִים; חוּץ מִגִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁירִין, לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט.
MISHNA: With regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה חֲלַשׁ, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּה, לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין צְרִיכִין – מָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ״, מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?! אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתָא הָהוּא חַבְרָא, שְׁקַלָה לִשְׁרָגָא מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר: רַחֲמָנָא! אוֹ בְּטוּלָּךְ, אוֹ בְּטוּלָּא דְּבַר עֵשָׂו. לְמֵימְרָא דְּרוֹמָאֵי מְעַלּוּ מִפָּרְסָאֵי?! וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֱלֹהִים הֵבִין דַּרְכָּהּ וְהוּא יָדַע אֶת מְקוֹמָהּ״? יוֹדֵעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לְקַבֵּל גְּזֵירַת רוֹמִיִּים, עָמַד וְהִגְלָה אוֹתָם לְבָבֶל. לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּנֵיתוֹ חַבָּרֵי לְבָבֶל, הָא לְבָתַר דַּאֲתוֹ חַבָּרֵי לְבָבֶל. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״ – כָּשֵׁר: אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁהַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד עֵד כְּתִיבָה, דְּנַעֲשׂוּ כִּשְׁנַיִם עַל זֶה וְכִשְׁנַיִם עַל זֶה; אֲבָל מִתַּחַת יְדֵי עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה – פָּסוּל.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn’t they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration. In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain Persian priest [ḥabbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Romans are preferable to the Persians? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God understands its way and He knows its place” (Job 28:23)? This means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows with regard to the Jewish people that they are unable to accept and live under Roman decrees, and therefore He arose and exiled them to Babylonia. This indicates that living under Babylonian rule is preferable to living under Roman rule. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this interpretation of Rabbi Ḥiyya refers to the period before the Persians reached Babylonia, when life there was very comfortable. That statement of Rabba was issued after the Persians reached Babylonia, when the situation changed and living there became more difficult.
רַב פָּפָּא, כִּי הֲוָה אָתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ שְׁטָרָא פָּרְסָאָה דַּעֲבִיד בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, מַקְרֵי לְהוּ לִשְׁנֵי גוֹיִם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה בְּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ, וּמַגְבֵּי בֵּיהּ מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was weak, and Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to visit him and to inquire about his well-being. While they were there, they raised a dilemma before him: With regard to two people who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas, are they required to say: It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence, or are they not required to issue this declaration? He said to them: They are not required to say it, for the following reason: What if they said: She was divorced in our presence, wouldn’t they be deemed credible? Therefore, they do not have to state the declaration. In the meantime, while they were sitting there, in came a certain Persian priest [ḥabbara] and took the lamp [sheragga] from before them. It was a Persian holiday on which the Persians prohibited the public from maintaining light outside their temple. Rabba, who was from Eretz Yisrael, said: Merciful One! Let us live either in Your shadow or in the shadow of the descendants of Esau, the Romans. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the Romans are preferable to the Persians? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God understands its way and He knows its place” (Job 28:23)? This means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, knows with regard to the Jewish people that they are unable to accept and live under Roman decrees, and therefore He arose and exiled them to Babylonia. This indicates that living under Babylonian rule is preferable to living under Roman rule. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as this interpretation of Rabbi Ḥiyya refers to the period before the Persians reached Babylonia, when life there was very comfortable. That statement of Rabba was issued after the Persians reached Babylonia, when the situation changed and living there became more difficult.
הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל וְכוּ׳: תְּנַן הָתָם, פְּרוֹסְבּוּל אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּט. זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהִתְקִין הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן; שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הָעָם שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַלְווֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְעָבְרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל וְגוֹ׳״, עָמַד וְהִתְקִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל. וְזֶה הוּא גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל פְּרוֹסְבּוּל: ״מוֹסְרַנִי לָכֶם פְּלוֹנִי [וּפְלוֹנִי] דַּיָּינִין שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁכׇּל חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי, שֶׁאֶגְבֶּנּוּ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶרְצֶה״. וְהַדַּיָּינִים חוֹתְמִים לְמַטָּה, אוֹ הָעֵדִים. וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מְשַׁמְּטָא שְׁבִיעִית, וְהִתְקִין הִלֵּל דְּלָא מְשַׁמְּטָא?! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בַּשְּׁבִיעִית בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, וְרַבִּי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִיטָּה שָׁמוֹט״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי שְׁמִיטוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר: אַחַת שְׁמִיטַּת קַרְקַע וְאַחַת שְׁמִיטַּת כְּסָפִים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט קַרְקַע – אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט כְּסָפִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט קַרְקַע, אִי אַתָּה מְשַׁמֵּט כְּסָפִים. וְתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דִּתְשַׁמֵּט, זֵכֶר לַשְּׁבִיעִית; רָאָה הִלֵּל שֶׁנִּמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהַלְווֹת זֶה אֶת זֶה, עָמַד וְהִתְקִין פְּרוֹסְבּוּל. וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא מְשַׁמְּטָא שְׁבִיעִית, וְתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דִּתְשַׁמֵּט?! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֵׁב וְאַל תַּעֲשֶׂה הוּא. רָבָא אָמַר: הֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין – הֶפְקֵר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִנַּיִן שֶׁהֶפְקֵר בֵּית דִּין – הֶפְקֵר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבוֹא לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הַיָּמִים כַּעֲצַת הַשָּׂרִים וְהַזְּקֵנִים, יׇחֳרַם כׇּל רְכוּשׁוֹ וְהוּא יִבָּדֵל מִקְּהַל הַגּוֹלָה״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״אֵלֶּה הַנְּחָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִחֲלוּ אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְרָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן רָאשִׁים אֵצֶל אָבוֹת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה אָבוֹת מַנְחִילִין אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, אַף רָאשִׁים מַנְחִילִין הָעָם כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי הִתְקִין הִלֵּל פְּרוֹסְבּוּל – לְדָרֵיהּ הוּא דְּתַקֵּין, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְבַטּוֹלֵיהּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְדָרֵיהּ הוּא דְּתַקֵּין – מְבַטְּלִינַן לֵיהּ; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין, הָא אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחׇכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא כָּתְבִינַן פְּרוֹסְבּוּל אֶלָּא אִי בְּבֵי דִינָא דְּסוּרָא אִי בְּבֵי דִינָא דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא נָמֵי תַּקֵּין, בִּשְׁאָר בֵּי דִינָא נָמֵי לִכְתְּבוּ! דִּלְמָא כִּי תַּקֵּין הִלֵּל לְדָרֵי עָלְמָא – כְּגוֹן בֵּי דִינָא דִּידֵיהּ, וּכְרַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, דְּאַלִּימֵי לְאַפְקוֹעֵי מָמוֹנָא; אֲבָל לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – לָא. תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָא פְּרוֹסְבֻּלָא – עוּלְבָּנָא דְּדַיָּינֵי הוּא; אִי אֲיַישַּׁר חַיִל אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ. אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ?! וְהָא אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם אֲיַישֵּׁר חַיִל יוֹתֵר מֵהִלֵּל, אֲבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲקַיְּימִנֵּהּ. אֲקַיְּימִנֵּהּ?! הָא מִיקַּיַּים וְקָאֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵימָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא כָּתוּב כְּכָתוּב דָּמֵי. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַאי עוּלְבָּנָא – לִישָּׁנָא דְחוּצְפָּא הוּא, אוֹ לִישָּׁנָא דְנִיחוּתָא הוּא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: עֲלוּבָה כַּלָּה שֶׁזִּינְּתָה בְּקֶרֶב חוּפָּתָהּ. אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרַהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי קְרָא? ״עַד שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ בִּמְסִבּוֹ נִרְדִּי נָתַן רֵיחוֹ״. אָמַר רָבָא: עֲדַיִין חַבִּיבוּתָא הוּא גַּבַּן, דִּכְתִיב ״נָתַן״, וְלָא כְּתִיב ״הִסְרִיחַ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנֶּעֱלָבִין וְאֵינָן עוֹלְבִים, שׁוֹמְעִין חֶרְפָּתָן וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין, עוֹשִׂין מֵאַהֲבָה וּשְׂמֵחִין בְּיִסּוּרִין, עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְאוֹהֲבָיו כְּצֵאת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ״.
§ The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol]. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi’it 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans. And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him. The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts. And the Sages instituted that despite this, the Sabbatical Year still will abrogate debt in the present, in remembrance of the Torah-mandated Sabbatical Year. Hillel saw that the people of the nation refrained from lending to each other so he arose and instituted the prosbol. According to this explanation, the ordinance of Hillel did not conflict with a Torah law; rather, he added an ordinance to counter the effect of a rabbinic law. According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt, and the Sages instituted that it will cancel? It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money. Abaye says: This is not actual theft; it is an instruction to sit passively and not do anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. Rava says: The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: “And whoever did not come within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all of his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the captivity” (Ezra 10:8). Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakha that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless is derived from here: The verse states: “These are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed for inheritance” (Joshua 19:51). The Gemara asks: What do the heads have to do with the fathers? It comes to tell you: Just as fathers transmit anything that they wish to their children, so too, heads of the nation transmit to the people anything that they wish. This demonstrates that the court has the authority to take property from one person and to give it to another; therefore, the Sages have the authority to decide that all debts are canceled. § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Hillel instituted the prosbol, was it for his generation alone that he instituted it, and the custom developed to continue using it, or did he perhaps institute it also for all generations? The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether it was instituted for his generation only or for all generations when either way, it is still in use? The Gemara explains: The difference arises with regard to nullifying the institution of prosbol. If you say that it was for his generation alone that he instituted it, then we can nullify it if we desire. But if you say that he instituted it also for all generations, then there is a principle that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Therefore, we would not be able to nullify the ordinance instituted by Hillel and his court. What, then, is the halakha? The Gemara suggests a resolution to the dilemma: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: We write a prosbol only in the court of Sura or in the court of Neharde’a, as they were the primary centers of Torah study, but not in any other court. And if it enters your mind to say that he instituted it also for all generations, then let them write a prosbol in the other courts as well. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps when Hillel instituted the prosbol, he did so for all generations, but only for courts such as his court, which was the primary court of his time, and courts like those of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, as they have the power to remove money from someone’s possession. However, for all other courts, which are not as authoritative, he did not institute this ordinance. Therefore, the statement of Shmuel cannot serve as a proof with regard to the manner in which the prosbol was instituted. The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: This prosbol is an ulbena of the judges; if my strength increases I will nullify it. The Gemara challenges this statement: How could Shmuel say: I will nullify it? But isn’t it the case that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? It must be that Shmuel holds that Hillel did not establish the prosbol for all generations, and in his time it carried the force of a mere custom. The Gemara rejects this proof: It can be explained that this is what he said: If my strength increases so that I become greater than Hillel, then I will nullify the prosbol. By contrast, Rav Naḥman said: If my strength increases, I will uphold the institution of the prosbol. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: I will uphold it? Isn’t it upheld and standing? Why does the prosbol require further support? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If my strength increases, I will say something about it, and I will institute that even though the prosbol was not written, it is considered as though it was written. Then people would no longer need to write a prosbol, as it would be considered as if everyone wrote one. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This ulbena of the judges that Shmuel speaks of, is it a term of insolence, in that the judges are, according to Shmuel, enabling lenders to insolently collect debts that are not due to them, or a term of convenience, in that the judges are saving themselves the inconvenience of having to actually collect the debts detailed in the promissory notes? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Ulla said in describing the Jewish people after they sinned with the Golden Calf immediately following the revelation at Sinai: Insolent [aluva] is the bride who is promiscuous under her wedding canopy. Rav Mari, son of Shmuel’s daughter, says: What is the verse from which it is derived? “While the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:12). He understands the verse in the following manner: While the king was still involved in his celebration, i.e., God had just given the Torah, the perfume of the Jewish people gave off an unpleasant odor, i.e., they sinned with the Golden Calf. Rava says: Nevertheless, it is apparent from the verse that the affection of God is still upon us, as it is written euphemistically as “sent forth its fragrance” and the verse is not written: It reeked. The Gemara continues discussing the meaning of the word ulbena. The Sages taught: Those who are insulted [ne’elavin] but do not insult others, who hear their shame but do not respond, who act out of love and are joyful in their suffering, about them the verse states: “And they that love Him are as the sun going forth in its might” (Judges 5:31).
גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעוֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבוֹדוּ״. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְלֹא מָצָא עֲשָׂרָה, וְשִׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה! מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְעוֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבוֹדוּ״ – רְשׁוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. וְדִילְמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר רְשׁוּת! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ; דְּתַנְיָא בְּהֶדְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חוֹבָה. אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי, נָחֲתִי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים מִנִּכְסֵיהוֹן: דְּמַפְּקִי עַבְדַיְיהוּ לְחֵירוּתָא, וּדְסָיְירִי נִכְסַיְיהוּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וּדְקָבְעִי סְעוּדְתַּיְיהוּ בְּשַׁבְּתָא בְּעִידָּן בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אַחַת קָבְעָה סְעוּדָּתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְאַחַת קָבְעָה סְעוּדָּתָהּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן נֶעְקְרוּ.
§ The Gemara returns to discussing the matter itself cited above. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46). This is a positive mitzva requiring that one subjugate slaves their entire lives. Therefore, it is prohibited to emancipate them. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue to pray, and he did not find a quorum of ten men, and he emancipated his slave and had him complete a quorum of ten. This demonstrates that one is permitted to emancipate his slave. The Gemara answers: Freeing a slave to enable the performance of a mitzva, e.g., completing a quorum, is different. This does not demonstrate that in general one is permitted to emancipate his slave. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the proof citing the incident involving Rabbi Eliezer: The Sages taught: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever,” is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It is an obligation. The Gemara now explains the Gemara’s objection: But perhaps Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that it is optional. Therefore, the incident involving Rabbi Eliezer cannot serve as a proof that even those who hold that it is prohibited to free a slave would hold that it is permitted to free a slave to enable the performance of a mitzva. The Gemara answers: It cannot enter your mind to say that Rabbi Eliezer holds that enslaving them permanently is optional, as it is taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” is an obligation. In connection with this issue, Rabba said: With these three matters homeowners become impoverished: That they emancipate their slaves; and that they inspect their property on Shabbat; and that they set their meals on Shabbat at the time of the sermon in the study hall, so that they miss it, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There were two families in Jerusalem, one that set its meal on Shabbat and one that set its meal on the eve of Shabbat, and both of them were uprooted. One family was uprooted because they caused the suspension of Torah study, and the other was uprooted because by eating their meal on Shabbat eve, they did not properly distinguish between Shabbat and Shabbat eve.
אַבָּיֵי אִירְכַס לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא בֵּי כוּתָאֵי, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: שַׁדְּרוּהּ לִי. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: שְׁלַח סִימָנָא. שְׁלַח לְהוּ: דְּחִיוּוֹרָא כְּרֵיסֵיהּ. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּנַחְמָנִי אַתְּ, לָא הֲוָה מְשַׁדַּרְנָא לֵיהּ נִיהֲלָךְ; אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי חֲמָרֵי לָאו כְּרֵיסַיְיהוּ חִיוָּורֵי נִינְהוּ?!
The Gemara relates that Abaye lost a donkey among the Samaritans in Bei Kutai. He sent a request to them: Send it to me. They sent a response to him: Send a distinguishing mark and we will return it to you. He sent the following distinguishing mark to them: That its belly is white. They sent a response to him: If not for the fact that you are Naḥmani, meaning that we know that you are a trustworthy man, we would not send it to you. Is that to say that bellies of all donkeys aren’t white? Therefore, it is not a true distinguishing mark.
אַבָּיֵי אִירְכַס לֵיהּ חֲמָרָא בֵּי כוּתָאֵי, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: שַׁדְּרוּהּ לִי. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: שְׁלַח סִימָנָא. שְׁלַח לְהוּ: דְּחִיוּוֹרָא כְּרֵיסֵיהּ. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּנַחְמָנִי אַתְּ, לָא הֲוָה מְשַׁדַּרְנָא לֵיהּ נִיהֲלָךְ; אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי חֲמָרֵי לָאו כְּרֵיסַיְיהוּ חִיוָּורֵי נִינְהוּ?! מַתְנִי׳ אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יָתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַאי ״מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם״ – מִשּׁוּם דּוּחְקָא דְצִבּוּרָא הוּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא לִגְרְבוּ וְלַיְיתוֹ טְפֵי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּלֵוִי בַּר דַּרְגָּא פַּרְקַהּ לִבְרַתֵּיהּ בִּתְלֵיסַר אַלְפֵי דִּינְרֵי זָהָב. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּבִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים עֲבַד? דִּילְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים עֲבַד. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת שְׁבוּיִין: מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חַד. בְּנָתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בָּחֲשָׁן קִדְרָא בִּידַיְיהוּ. קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב עִילִישׁ, כְּתִיב: ״אָדָם אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף מָצָאתִי וְאִשָּׁה בְכׇל אֵלֶּה לֹא מָצָאתִי״, הָא אִיכָּא בְּנָתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן! גְּרַמָא לְהוּ מִילְּתָא וְאִשְׁתַּבְיָין, וְאִישְׁתְּבִאי אִיהוּ נָמֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה יָתֵיב גַּבֵּיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, דַּהֲוָה יָדַע בְּלִישָּׁנָא דְצִיפּוֹרֵי. אֲתָא עוֹרְבָא וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָאָמַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עִילִישׁ בְּרַח, עִילִישׁ בְּרַח״. אָמַר: עוֹרְבָא שַׁקָּרָא הוּא וְלָא סָמֵיכְנָא עֲלֵיהּ. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא יוֹנָה וְקָא קָרְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָאָמְרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עִילִישׁ בְּרַח, עִילִישׁ בְּרַח״. אָמַר: כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹנָה מְתִילָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִתְרְחִישׁ לִי נִיסָּא. אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אֶחְזֵי בְּנָתֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אִי קָיְימָן בְּהֵימָנוּתַיְיהוּ – אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ. אֲמַר: נְשֵׁי, כׇּל מִילֵּי דְּאִית לְהוּ סָדְרָן לַהֲדָדֵי בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא. שַׁמְעִינְהוּ דְּקָאָמְרָן: עָדֵי גּוּבְרִין וּנְהַרְדָּעֵי גּוּבְרִין, לֵימָא לְהוּ לְשָׁבוֹיַיְהוּ דְּלִירַחֲקִינְהוּ מֵהָכָא, דְּלָא לֵיתוֹ אִינָשִׁין וְלִישְׁמְעִי וְלִיפְרְקִינַן. קָם, עֲרַק, אֲתָא אִיהוּ וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. לְדִידֵיהּ אִיתְרְחִישׁ לֵיהּ נִיסָּא עֲבַר בְּמַבָּרָא, וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא אַשְׁכְּחוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. כִּי הָדְרָן וְאָתָן, אֲמַר: הֲווֹ קָא בָחֲשָׁן קִידְרָא בִּכְשָׁפִים.
s not a true distinguishing mark. MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world; and one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors for the betterment of the world, so that kidnappers will not be more restrictive with their captives to prevent them from escaping. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives, so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum. Abaye said: And who told us that he acted in accordance with the wishes of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the wishes of the Sages, and this anecdote cannot serve as a proof. The mishna taught: And one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors, for the betterment of the world. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when there is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive’s escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive to begin with, one may help him to escape. If it was instituted so that kidnappers in general will not act restrictively with their captives, it would be prohibited in this case as well. § The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman’s daughters would stir a boiling pot with their bare hands, and people thought that the heat did not harm them due to their righteousness. Rav Ilish had a difficulty with a verse, as it is written: “A man one of a thousand I have found, and a woman among all those have I not found” (Ecclesiastes 7:28). Aren’t there Rav Naḥman’s daughters, who were exceptionally righteous? These words caused them to be taken captive, due to the evil eye, and Rav Ilish was also taken captive with them. One day a certain man was sitting with him in captivity who knew the language of birds. A raven came and called to Rav Ilish. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is the raven saying? He said to him that it is saying: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Rav Ilish said: It is a lying raven, and I do not rely on it. In the meantime, a dove came and was calling out. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is it saying? He said to him that the dove said: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Ilish said: The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove; I conclude from the dove’s words that a miracle will happen for me, and I can attempt to escape. Rav Ilish said: Before I leave, I will go and I will see Rav Naḥman’s daughters. If they remained steadfast in their faith and are acting appropriately, then I will take them with me and I will return them to their home. He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde’a to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors. Upon hearing this Rav Ilish arose and escaped. He and that man who knew the language of the birds came to a river crossing. A miracle happened for him and he crossed the river on a ferry, and the captors found that man and killed him. When Rav Naḥman’s daughters were returned and they came back from their captivity, Rav Ilish said: They would stir the pot with witchcraft, and that is why they were not burned by the boiling pot, but it was not due to their righteousness.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, נָקְטִינַן: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִין – יִשָּׂרֵף, כְּתָבוֹ גּוֹי – יִגָּנֵז. נִמְצָא בְּיַד מִין – יִגָּנֵז. נִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – אָמְרִי לַהּ יִגָּנֵז, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קוֹרִין בּוֹ. סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ גּוֹי – תָּנֵי חֲדָא: יִשָּׂרֵף, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יִגָּנֵז, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: קוֹרִין בּוֹ! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּתַנְיָא ״יִשָּׂרֵף״ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: סְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת גּוֹי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״יִגָּנֵז״ – הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתָנֵי רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מִפַּשְׁרוּנְיָא: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת שֶׁכְּתָבָן מִין, וּמָסוֹר, גּוֹי, וְעֶבֶד, אִשָּׁה, וְקָטָן, וְכוּתִי, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד – פְּסוּלִין; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּקְשַׁרְתָּם״–״וּכְתַבְתָּם״ – כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְשִׁירָה אֵינוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה. וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא ״קוֹרִין בּוֹ״ – הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא, דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים מִן הַגּוֹיִם בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כְּתוּבִין כְּהִלְכָתָן. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוֹי אֶחָד בְּצַיְדָּן שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹתֵב סְפָרִים, וְהִתִּיר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִיקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ.
Rav Naḥman says: We have a tradition that a Torah scroll that was written by a heretic should be burned; a Torah scroll written by a gentile should be interred; a Torah scroll found in the possession of a heretic, and it is not clear who wrote it, should be interred. With regard to a Torah scroll found in the possession of a gentile, some say it should be interred and some say that one may read from it. The Gemara asks: With regard to a Torah scroll that was written by a gentile, it is taught in one baraita: It should be burned, and it is taught in another baraita: It should be interred, and it is taught in another baraita: One may read from it. There is a three-fold contradiction concerning the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: That which is taught in a baraita, that it should be burned, is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The unspecified intentions of a gentile are for idol worship, and therefore everything he wrote is assumed to be written for the sake of idolatrous worship and must be burned. And that which is taught in a baraita, which said that it should be interred, is the opinion of this tanna, as Rav Hamnuna, son of Rava of Pashronya, taught: A Torah scroll, phylacteries, or mezuzot that were written by a heretic or an informer, a gentile or a slave, a woman or a minor, or a Samaritan or a Jewish apostate, are unfit, as it is stated: “And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand…and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:8–9). From this juxtaposition, one can derive the following: Anyone who is included in the mitzva of binding the phylacteries, i.e., one who is both obligated and performs the mitzva, is included in the class of people who may write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; but anyone who is not included in the mitzva of binding is not included in the class of people who may write sacred texts. This baraita equates the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile to the halakha of Torah scrolls written by these other types of people, which are interred. And concerning that which is taught in a baraita, i.e., that one may read from it, that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:6): One may purchase Torah scrolls from gentiles in any location, provided that they are written in accordance with their halakhot. And there was an incident involving a gentile in Tzaidan who would write Torah scrolls, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the Jews to purchase the Torah scrolls from him.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא – כִּדְשַׁנִּינַן. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, מַאן חֲכָמִים – רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: בָּעֵינַן תְּנַאי כָּפוּל, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּדְלָא כַּפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ. מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם – אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: וְהוּא שֶׁמָּכַר וְשָׁנָה וְשִׁילֵּשׁ. הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי בֵּי מִיכְסֵי, דְּיָזְפִי זוּזֵי מִגּוֹיִם וְלָא הֲוָה לְהוּ לְמִפְרְעִינְהוּ. אָתוּ וְקָא גָרְבִי לְהוּ, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לְכוּ, דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם – אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: לִימַּדְתַּנִי רַבֵּינוּ, וְהוּא שֶׁמָּכַר וְשָׁנָה וְשִׁילֵּשׁ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִרְגָּל רְגִילִי דְּעָבְדִי הָכִי. הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְלוּדָאֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פִּירְקַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו לַגּוֹיִם – אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים – מִשּׁוּם קִלְקוּלָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא קְטָלָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַאי יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר הוּא, דְּקָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ דְּקָאָכֵיל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת! אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֵימָא לְתֵיאָבוֹן הוּא דְּקָאָכֵיל. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְהָא זִמְנִין דְּאִיכָּא הֶיתֵּירָא וְאִיסּוּרָא קַמֵּיהּ, וְשָׁבֵיק הֶיתֵּירָא וְאָכֵיל אִיסּוּרָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל, לָא קָא שָׁבְקִי לִי דְּאֶפְרְקִינָּךְ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ זַבֵּין נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְלוּדָאֵי, שְׁקַל בַּהֲדֵיהּ חַיְיתָא וְגֻלְגֻּלְתָּא, אֲמַר: גְּמִירִי דְּיוֹמָא בָּתְרָא כֹּל דְּבָעֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עָבְדִי לֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵיחוּל אַדְּמֵיהּ. יוֹמָא בָּתְרָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי נִיחָא לָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: בָּעֵינָא אֶקְמְטִינְכוּ וְאוֹתְבִינְכוּ, וְכֹל חַד מִינַּיְיכוּ אֶמְחְיֵהּ חַיְיתָא וּפַלְגָא. קַמְטִינְהוּ וְאוֹתְבִינְהוּ, כֹּל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ כַּד מַחְיֵיהּ חַד חַיְיתָא נְפַק נִשְׁמְתֵיהּ. חַרְקִינֵּיהּ לְשִׁינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחוֹכֵי קָא מְחַיְּיכַתְּ בִּי? אַכַּתִּי פָּשׁ לָךְ גַּבַּי פַּלְגָא דְּחַיְיתָא. קַטְלִינְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ. נְפַק וַאֲתָא, יָתֵיב קָאָכֵיל וְשָׁתֵי. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיה: לָא בָּעֵית מִידֵּי לְמִזְגֵּא עֲלֵיהּ? אֲמַר לַהּ: בִּתִּי, כְּרֵיסִי כָּרִי. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ שְׁבַק קַבָּא דְמוֹרִיקָא, קְרָא אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״וְעָזְבוּ לַאֲחֵרִים חֵילָם״.
MISHNA: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed, but the children are redeemed after their father’s death, as there is no reason to penalize them. GEMARA: Rav Asi says: And this halakha, that he is not redeemed, applies only when he sold himself for a first time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a second time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a third time. Since he sold himself repeatedly, the Sages penalized him by instituting that he may not be redeemed. The Gemara relates: There were those residents of Bei Mikhsi who borrowed money from gentiles, and they did not have sufficient funds to repay them. As a result, the gentiles came and seized them as slaves. They came before Rav Huna and requested that he instruct the Jews to redeem them. Rav Huna said to them: What can I do for you, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Our master taught me: And this halakha applies only when he sold himself, and repeated a second time, and repeated a third time, which was not the case in this incident. Rav Huna said to him: These people do this habitually, and it is as though they sold themselves for a second and third time. The Gemara relates: A certain man sold himself to gladiators [luda’ei]. He came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: Redeem me. Rabbi Ami said to him: We learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed. However, his children are redeemed due to the harm of becoming assimilated among the gentiles, and all the more so here, where there is a concern that leaving him in bondage may lead to his death, he should be redeemed. The Sages said to Rabbi Ami: This man is a Jewish apostate, as they saw him when he was eating unslaughtered animal carcasses and animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]. He said to them: Say that he was eating them due to his appetite, not because he is an apostate, but because he was overcome by temptation. They said to him: But there are times when there are permitted and forbidden foods before him, and he sets aside the permitted food and eats the forbidden food, indicating that it is not temptation alone that causes him to transgress. Once he heard this, Rabbi Ami said to that man: Go, because they do not allow me to redeem you. The Gemara recounts a related incident: Reish Lakish sold himself to gladiators. He took a bag and a round stone inside of it with him. He said: There is a tradition that on the final day of a captive’s life, before his captors kill him, they do for him anything that he requests of them, so that he would forgive them for the spilling of his blood. On the final day before they were set to kill him they said to him: What is amenable to you? He said to them: I want to tie you up and have you sit, and I will strike each one of you one and a half times. He tied them up and had each one of them sit. When he struck each of them with one strike with the stone in the bag, the one whom he struck died, because Reish Lakish was of great strength. Reish Lakish gritted his teeth in anger, and said to the one whom he killed, in order to prevent the others from realizing what was happening: Are you laughing at me? You still have half of a strike remaining with me, as I struck you only once. He killed them all, and Reish Lakish escaped his captors. He left and came back home, and after some time had passed he was sitting, eating, and drinking, without concern for his livelihood. His daughter said to him: You don’t want something to lie upon? He said to her: My daughter, my belly is my pillow, and this is enough for me. When he died he left only a kav of saffron as an inheritance, and even so he recited this verse about himself: “And they leave their wealth for others” (Psalms 49:11), meaning that he was pained that he did not use all of his property. He exhibited his confidence that God would provide his needs by not saving money for the future.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ לְגוֹי – לוֹקֵחַ וּמֵבִיא מִמֶּנּוּ בִּכּוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִידֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לִי הָאָרֶץ״ – לִי קְדוּשַּׁת הָאָרֶץ; אֲבָל יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַשָּׁמַיִם שָׁמַיִם לַה׳ וְהָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִבְנֵי אָדָם״. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַפְקִיעַ מִידֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – וְלֹא דְּגַן גּוֹי; אֲבָל אֵין קִנְיָן לְגוֹי בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַה׳ הָאָרֶץ״. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – וְלֹא דְּגַן גּוֹי, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּיגּוּנְךָ, וְלֹא דִּיגּוּן גּוֹי.
MISHNA: One who sells his field to a gentile must purchase and bring the first fruits from the field that he sold, for the betterment of the world. GEMARA: Rabba says: Even though a gentile has no capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, thereby removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as it is stated: “For the land is Mine” (Leviticus 25:23), which teaches: The sanctity of the land is Mine, and it is not abrogated when the land is sold to a gentile; a gentile does have, however, the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits, ditches, and caves in the land he has purchased, as it is stated: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth has He given to the children of men” (Psalms 115:16). And Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a gentile has the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to cause the abrogation of the sanctity of the land, removing it from the obligation to tithe its produce, as it is stated with regard to tithes: “The tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), which teaches that it is only the grain of a Jew that is obligated in tithes and not the grain of a gentile; a gentile does not have, however, the capability of acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael to allow him to dig pits, ditches, and caves, in the land he has purchased, as it is stated: “The earth is the Lord’s” (Psalms 24:1).
הָהוּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס דַּהֲוָה בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דַּהֲוָה קָא מְזַבֵּין אַרְעָתָא וְזָבֵין עַבְדֵי, וְלָא שַׁבְקֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אַחְווֹ לֵיהּ בְּחֶלְמֵיהּ ״אֲנִי לַהֲרוֹס וְאַתָּה לִבְנוֹת?!״ אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אַשְׁגַּח, אֲמַר: דִּבְרֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. הָנְהוּ בֵּי תְרֵי דְּאִיגָּרִי בְּהוּ שָׂטָן, דְּכֹל בֵּי שִׁמְשֵׁי הֲווֹ קָא מִינְּצוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אִיקְּלַע רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְהָתָם, עַכְּבִינְהוּ תְּלָתָא בֵּי שִׁמְשֵׁי, עַד דַּעֲבַד לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא. שַׁמְעֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר: וַוי, דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא מִבֵּיתֵיהּ.
It is related that there was a certain steward who was in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who was selling land belonging to the orphans and purchasing slaves with the proceeds, and Rabbi Meir did not allow him to do this, as the practice is contrary to halakha. They showed him in his dream the words: I wish to destroy and you build? He understood this as a sign that God wanted the orphans to suffer financial collapse, and therefore it would be preferable to allow the steward to continue his practice. Even so, Rabbi Meir paid no heed to his dream, and said: Words appearing in dreams do not bring up and do not take down; they should not be taken into consideration. Apropos an incident involving Rabbi Meir, the Gemara relates another story about him: There were two people who, incited by Satan, would argue with each other every Friday afternoon at twilight. Rabbi Meir happened to come to the place where they argued. He stopped them from fighting three Friday afternoons at twilight, until finally he made peace between them. He then heard Satan say: Woe, that Rabbi Meir removed that man, Satan, from his house. This indicates that Satan himself lives among those who have discord.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לִפְלוֹנִי, אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא כְּתַבְתִּים לִשְׁמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּיַד מִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֶאֱמָן אַתָּה לְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרְךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נְהִי דְּהִפְסִיד שְׂכַר אַזְכָּרוֹת, שְׂכַר דְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה כּוּלֵּיהּ מִי הִפְסִיד?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, שֶׁכׇּל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ כְּתוּבוֹת לִשְׁמָן – אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה כְּלוּם. וְלִיעַבַּר עֲלַיְיהוּ קוּלְמוֹס, וְלִיקַדְּשֵׁיהּ! כְּמַאן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דִּתְנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם; וְנִתְכַּוֵּון לִכְתּוֹב ״יְהוּדָה״, וְטָעָה וְלֹא הֵטִיל בּוֹ דָּלֶת; מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס, וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַשֵּׁם מִן הַמּוּבְחָר. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲדָא אַזְכָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה – לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּמְנוּמָּר. הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לִפְלוֹנִי, גְּוִילִין שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא עִיבַּדְתִּים לִשְׁמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּיַד מִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרְךָ, אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי? הָתָם, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר טָעֵי בִּדְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מַפְסֵיד כּוּלֵּיהּ אַגְרֵיהּ – וַאֲתָא וַאֲמַר, אֵימוֹר קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר.
§ It is similarly related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: In the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not write the mentions of God’s name with the proper intention that is required when writing a holy name, and therefore the scroll is not valid. Rabbi Ami said to him: This Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is now in the buyer’s possession. Rabbi Ami said to him: You are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you admit that you wrote the Torah scroll in a faulty manner, and therefore the buyer can refuse to pay you. But you are not deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., to invalidate, the Torah scroll. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Although he lost his wage with regard to the mentions of God’s name that he wrote in a faulty manner, did he lose his wage with regard to the entire Torah scroll, which he wrote correctly? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes, he lost his wage for the entire Torah scroll, as any Torah scroll in which the mentions of God’s name have not been written with the proper intention is not worth anything. The Gemara asks: But let the scribe pass a reed pen [kulemos] with additional ink over instances of God’s name and sanctify them, going over the names with the proper intention. And since there is no option to correct the Torah scroll in this manner, in accordance with whose opinion was this ruling issued? Shall we say that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This is as we learned in a baraita: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text that he needed to write the name of God, spelled yod, heh, vav, heh; and he erred and intended to write Yehuda, spelled yod, heh, vav, dalet, heh, but he made a mistake when writing Yehuda and did not place a dalet in the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then he should pass over it with a reed pen. He writes over what was written and sanctifies it with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds a second layer of ink, the name has not been written in the optimal manner. The fact that Rabbi Ami did not offer the option to rewrite the mentions of God’s name to correct the scroll indicates that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara rejects this argument: You can even say that in general the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but there is a distinction between the cases. Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only with regard to a single mention of God’s name that was initially written without the proper intention. In such a case, it is possible to pass over the name with additional ink and thereby sanctify it. But passing over all of the holy names found in an entire Torah scroll is not possible. Why not? Because if the scribe would pass his pen over all the names of God found in a Torah scroll, it would look speckled, as the instances of the Divine Name would be written with a thicker layer of ink and stand out. It is further related that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: With regard to the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not process its parchment with the proper intention. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: The Torah scroll is currently in whose possession? The scribe said to him: It is in the possession of the buyer. Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Since you are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage, as you have admitted that the parchment upon which the Torah scroll was written is invalid, you are deemed credible to cause a loss to, i.e., disqualify, the Torah scroll. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case in which Rabbi Ami said that the scribe is not deemed credible to disqualify the Torah scroll? The Gemara answers: There it can be said that the scribe was lying and merely wished to distress the purchaser of the Torah scroll. He claimed that he had written God’s names without the proper intention because he made the mistake of Rabbi Yirmeya. He thought, as Rabbi Yirmeya did, that as a result of his purported admission he would lose only his wage for writing the holy names, but he would still receive payment for the rest of the scroll. Here, by contrast, since the scribe knows that by claiming that he did not process the parchment with the proper intention, he causes the loss of his entire wage, and he nevertheless comes and says this, you should say that he speaks the truth and should be deemed credible. Since he is deemed credible and there is no concern that he merely wished to distress the purchaser, the Torah scroll is disqualified.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם מְפַחֵד תָּמִיד וּמַקְשֶׁה לִבּוֹ יִפּוֹל בְּרָעָה״? אַקַּמְצָא וּבַר קַמְצָא חֲרוּב יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אַתַּרְנְגוֹלָא וְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא חֲרוּב טוּר מַלְכָּא, אַשָּׁקָא דְרִיסְפַּק חֲרוּב בֵּיתֵּר. אַקַּמְצָא וּבַר קַמְצָא חֲרוּב יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּרָחֲמֵיהּ קַמְצָא, וּבְעֵל דְּבָבֵיהּ בַּר קַמְצָא. עֲבַד סְעוֹדְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי קַמְצָא. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ בַּר קַמְצָא. אֲתָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִכְּדֵי הָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּעֵל דְּבָבֵאּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא הוּא, מַאי בָּעֵית הָכָא? קוּם פּוֹק! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וַאֲתַאי, שִׁבְקַן וְיָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ דְּמֵי מָה דְּאָכֵילְנָא וְשָׁתֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ דְּמֵי פַּלְגָא דִּסְעוֹדְתָּיךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ דְּמֵי כּוּלַּהּ סְעוֹדְתָּיךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. נַקְטֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ וְאַפְּקֵיהּ. אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וַהֲווֹ יָתְבִי רַבָּנַן וְלָא מַחוֹ בֵּיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָא נִיחָא לְהוּ, אֵיזִיל אֵיכוֹל בְּהוּ קוּרְצָא בֵּי מַלְכָּא. אֲזַל אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְקֵיסָר: מְרַדוּ בָּךְ יְהוּדָאֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי יֵימַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁדַּר לְהוּ קוּרְבָּנָא, חָזֵית אִי מַקְרְבִין לֵיהּ. אֲזַל שַׁדַּר בִּידֵיהּ עִגְלָא תִּלְתָּא. בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָאָתֵי שְׁדָא בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּנִיב שְׂפָתַיִם, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן – דּוּכְתָּא דִּלְדִידַן הָוֵה מוּמָא, וּלְדִידְהוּ לָאו מוּמָא הוּא. סְבוּר רַבָּנַן לְקָרוֹבֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן אַבְקוּלָס: יֹאמְרוּ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְרֵיבִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ! סְבוּר לְמִיקְטְלֵיהּ דְּלָא לֵיזִיל וְלֵימָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה: יֹאמְרוּ מֵטִיל מוּם בַּקֳּדָשִׁים יֵהָרֵג! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן אַבְקוּלָס, הֶחְרִיבָה אֶת בֵּיתֵנוּ, וְשָׂרְפָה אֶת הֵיכָלֵנוּ, וְהִגְלִיתָנוּ מֵאַרְצֵנוּ. שַׁדַּר עִלָּוַיְיהוּ לְנֵירוֹן קֵיסָר. כִּי קָאָתֵי; שְׁדָא גִּירָא לְמִזְרָח – אֲתָא נְפַל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. לְמַעֲרָב – אֲתָא נְפַל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם – אֲתָא נְפַל בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא: פְּסוֹק לִי פְּסוּקָיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְנָתַתִּי אֶת נִקְמָתִי בֶּאֱדוֹם בְּיַד עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר: קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בָּעֵי לַחֲרוֹבֵי בֵּיתֵיהּ, וּבָעֵי לְכַפּוֹרֵי יְדֵיהּ בְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא. עֲרַק וַאֲזַל וְאִיגַּיַּיר, וּנְפַק מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ עִילָּוַיְיהוּ לְאַסְפַּסְיָינוּס קֵיסָר. אֲתָא, צָר עֲלַהּ תְּלָת שְׁנֵי. הֲווֹ בַּהּ הָנְהוּ תְּלָתָא עַתִּירֵי: נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן, וּבֶן כַּלְבָּא שָׂבוּעַ, וּבֶן צִיצִית הַכֶּסֶת. נַקְדִּימוֹן בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן – שֶׁנָּקְדָה לוֹ חַמָּה בַּעֲבוּרוֹ. בֶּן כַּלְבָּא שָׂבוּעַ, שֶׁכׇּל הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא רָעֵב כְּכֶלֶב, יוֹצֵא כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׂבֵעַ. בֶּן צִיצִית הַכֶּסֶת – שֶׁהָיְתָה צִיצָתוֹ נִגְרֶרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי כְּסָתוֹת. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שֶׁהָיְתָה כִּסְתּוֹ מוּטֶּלֶת בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי. חַד אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא זָיֵינָּא לְהוּ בְּחִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי, וְחַד אֲמַר לְהוּ: בִּדְחַמְרָא וּבִדְמִלְחָא וּמִשְׁחָא, וְחַד אֲמַר לְהוּ: בִּדְצִיבֵי. וְשַׁבַּחוּ רַבָּנַן לִדְצִיבֵי, דְּרַב חִסְדָּא כֹּל אַקְלִידֵי הֲוָה מָסַר לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ, בַּר מִדְּצִיבֵי. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֲכַלְבָּא דְחִיטֵּי בָּעֵי שִׁיתִּין אֲכַלְבֵּי דְצִיבֵי. הֲוָה לְהוּ לְמֵיזַן עֶשְׂרִים וְחַד שַׁתָּא. הֲווֹ בְּהוּ הָנְהוּ בִּרְיוֹנֵי, אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ רַבָּנַן: נִיפּוֹק וְנַעֲבֵיד שְׁלָמָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. לָא שַׁבְקִינְהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ: נִיפּוֹק וְנַעֲבֵיד קְרָבָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ רַבָּנַן: לָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתָא. קָמוּ קְלֹנְהוּ לְהָנְהוּ אַמְבָּרֵי דְּחִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי, וַהֲוָה כַּפְנָא. מָרְתָּא בַּת בַּיְיתּוֹס עַתִּירְתָּא דִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הַוְיָא. שַׁדַּרְתֵּהּ לִשְׁלוּחַה,ּ וַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי סְמִידָא. אַדַּאֲזַל אִיזְדַּבַּן. אֲתָא אֲמַר לַהּ: סְמִידָא לֵיכָּא, חִיוָּרְתָּא אִיכָּא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי. אַדַּאֲזַל אִיזְדַּבַּן. אֲתָא וַאֲמַר לַהּ: חִיוָּרְתָּא לֵיכָּא, גּוּשְׁקְרָא אִיכָּא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי. אַדַּאֲזַל אִזְדַּבַּן. אֲתָא וַאֲמַר לַהּ: גּוּשְׁקְרָא לֵיכָּא, קִימְחָא דִשְׂעָרֵי אִיכָּא. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי. אַדַּאֲזַל אִיזְדַּבַּן. הֲוָה שְׁלִיפָא מְסָאנָא, אֲמַרָה: אִיפּוֹק וְאֶחְזֵי אִי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא מִידֵּי לְמֵיכַל. אִיתִיב לַהּ פַּרְתָּא בְּכַרְעַאּ, וּמִתָה. קָרֵי עֲלַהּ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: ״הָרַכָּה בְךָ וְהָעֲנוּגָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא נִסְּתָה כַף רַגְלָהּ״. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: גְּרוֹגֶרֶת דְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אֲכַלָה, וְאִיתְּנִיסָא וּמִתָה. דְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק יְתֵיב אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין בְּתַעֲנִיתָא דְּלָא לֵיחָרֵב יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, כִּי הֲוָה אָכֵיל מִידֵּי הֲוָה מִיתְחֲזֵי מֵאַבָּרַאי. וְכִי הֲוָה בָּרֵיא, מַיְיתִי לֵיהּ גְּרוֹגְרוֹת, מָיֵיץ מַיַּיְהוּ וְשָׁדֵי לְהוּ. כִּי הֲוָה קָא נִיחָא נַפְשַׁהּ, אַפִּיקְתֵּהּ לְכֹל דַּהֲבַהּ וְכַסְפַּהּ שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוּקָא, אֲמַרָה: הַאי לְמַאי מִיבְּעֵי לִי! וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּסְפָּם בְּחוּצוֹת יַשְׁלִיכוּ״. אַבָּא סִקְרָא – רֵישׁ בִּרְיוֹנֵי דִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הֲוָה. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: תָּא בְּצִינְעָא לְגַבַּאי. אֲתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד אֵימַת עָבְדִיתוּ הָכִי, וְקָטְלִיתוּ לֵיהּ לְעָלְמָא בְּכַפְנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֶיעֱבֵיד, דְּאִי אָמֵינָא לְהוּ מִידֵּי קָטְלוּ לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי לִי תַּקַּנְתָּא לְדִידִי דְּאֶיפּוֹק, אֶפְשָׁר דְּהָוֵי הַצָּלָה פּוּרְתָּא.
§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief” (Proverbs 28:14)? Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. The place known as the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [rispak]. The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza. The man who was hosting the feast came and found bar Kamtza sitting at the feast. The host said to bar Kamtza. That man is the enemy [ba’al devava] of that man, that is, you are my enemy. What then do you want here? Arise and leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: Since I have already come, let me stay and I will give you money for whatever I eat and drink. Just do not embarrass me by sending me out. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: I will give you money for half of the feast; just do not send me away. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza then said to him: I will give you money for the entire feast; just let me stay. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Finally, the host took bar Kamtza by his hand, stood him up, and took him out. After having been cast out from the feast, bar Kamtza said to himself: Since the Sages were sitting there and did not protest the actions of the host, although they saw how he humiliated me, learn from it that they were content with what he did. I will therefore go and inform [eikhul kurtza] against them to the king. He went and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor said to him: Who says that this is the case? Bar Kamtza said to him: Go and test them; send them an offering to be brought in honor of the government, and see whether they will sacrifice it. The emperor went and sent with him a choice three-year-old calf. While bar Kamtza was coming with the calf to the Temple, he made a blemish on the calf’s upper lip. And some say he made the blemish on its eyelids, a place where according to us, i.e., halakha, it is a blemish, but according to them, gentile rules for their offerings, it is not a blemish. Therefore, when bar Kamtza brought the animal to the Temple, the priests would not sacrifice it on the altar since it was blemished, but they also could not explain this satisfactorily to the gentile authorities, who did not consider it to be blemished. The blemish notwithstanding, the Sages thought to sacrifice the animal as an offering due to the imperative to maintain peace with the government. Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas said to them: If the priests do that, people will say that blemished animals may be sacrificed as offerings on the altar. The Sages said: If we do not sacrifice it, then we must prevent bar Kamtza from reporting this to the emperor. The Sages thought to kill him so that he would not go and speak against them. Rabbi Zekharya said to them: If you kill him, people will say that one who makes a blemish on sacrificial animals is to be killed. As a result, they did nothing, bar Kamtza’s slander was accepted by the authorities, and consequently the war between the Jews and the Romans began. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The excessive humility of Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land. The Roman authorities then sent Nero Caesar against the Jews. When he came to Jerusalem, he wished to test his fate. He shot an arrow to the east and the arrow came and fell in Jerusalem. He then shot another arrow to the west and it also fell in Jerusalem. He shot an arrow in all four directions of the heavens, and each time the arrow fell in Jerusalem. Nero then conducted another test: He said to a child: Tell me a verse that you learned today. He said to him as follows: “And I will lay My vengeance upon Edom by the hand of My people Israel” (Ezekiel 25:14). Nero said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wishes to destroy His Temple, and He wishes to wipe his hands with that man, i.e., with me. The Romans are associated with Edom, the descendants of Esau. If I continue on this mission, I will eventually be punished for having served as God’s agent to bring about the destruction. So he fled and became a convert, and ultimately Rabbi Meir descended from him. The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them. These three wealthy people offered their assistance. One of them said to the leaders of the city: I will feed the residents with wheat and barley. And one of them said to leaders of the city: I will provide the residents with wine, salt, and oil. And one of them said to the leaders of the city: I will supply the residents with wood. The Gemara comments: And the Sages gave special praise to he who gave the wood, since this was an especially expensive gift. As Rav Ḥisda would give all of the keys [aklidei] to his servant, except for the key to his shed for storing wood, which he deemed the most important of them all. As Rav Ḥisda said: One storehouse [akhleva] of wheat requires sixty storehouses of wood for cooking and baking fuel. These three wealthy men had between them enough commodities to sustain the besieged for twenty-one years. There were certain zealots among the people of Jerusalem. The Sages said to them: Let us go out and make peace with the Romans. But the zealots did not allow them to do this. The zealots said to the Sages: Let us go out and engage in battle against the Romans. But the Sages said to them: You will not be successful. It would be better for you to wait until the siege is broken. In order to force the residents of the city to engage in battle, the zealots arose and burned down these storehouses [ambarei] of wheat and barley, and there was a general famine. With regard to this famine it is related that Marta bat Baitos was one of the wealthy women of Jerusalem. She sent out her agent and said to him: Go bring me fine flour [semida]. By the time he went, the fine flour was already sold. He came and said to her: There is no fine flour, but there is ordinary flour. She said to him: Go then and bring me ordinary flour. By the time he went, the ordinary flour was also sold. He came and said to her: There is no ordinary flour, but there is coarse flour [gushkera]. She said to him: Go then and bring me coarse flour. By the time he went, the coarse flour was already sold. He came and said to her: There is no coarse flour, but there is barley flour. She said to him: Go then and bring me barley flour. But once again, by the time he went, the barley flour was also sold. She had just removed her shoes, but she said: I will go out myself and see if I can find something to eat. She stepped on some dung, which stuck to her foot, and, overcome by disgust, she died. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai read concerning her a verse found in the section of the Torah listing the curses that will befall Israel: “The tender and delicate woman among you who would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground” (Deuteronomy 28:56). There are those who say that she did not step on dung, but rather she ate a fig of Rabbi Tzadok, and became disgusted and died. What are these figs? Rabbi Tzadok observed fasts for forty years, praying that Jerusalem would not be destroyed. He became so emaciated from fasting that when he would eat something it was visible from the outside of his body. And when he would eat after a fast they would bring him figs and he would suck out their liquid and cast the rest away. It was one such fig that Marta bat Baitos found and that caused her death. It is further related that as she was dying, she took out all of her gold and silver and threw it in the marketplace. She said: Why do I need this? And this is as it is written: “They shall cast their silver in the streets and their gold shall be as an impure thing; their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord; they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels” (Ezekiel 7:19). § The Gemara relates: Abba Sikkara was the leader of the zealots [biryonei] of Jerusalem and the son of the sister of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai sent a message to him: Come to me in secret. He came, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Until when will you do this and kill everyone through starvation? Abba Sikkara said to him: What can I do, for if I say something to them they will kill me. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Show me a method so that I will be able to leave the city, and it is possible that through this there will be some small salvation.
אַבָּא סִקְרָא – רֵישׁ בִּרְיוֹנֵי דִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הֲוָה. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: תָּא בְּצִינְעָא לְגַבַּאי. אֲתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד אֵימַת עָבְדִיתוּ הָכִי, וְקָטְלִיתוּ לֵיהּ לְעָלְמָא בְּכַפְנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֶיעֱבֵיד, דְּאִי אָמֵינָא לְהוּ מִידֵּי קָטְלוּ לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי לִי תַּקַּנְתָּא לְדִידִי דְּאֶיפּוֹק, אֶפְשָׁר דְּהָוֵי הַצָּלָה פּוּרְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְקוֹט נַפְשָׁךְ בִּקְצִירֵי, וְלֵיתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא וְלִישַׁיְּילוּ בָּךְ, וְאַיְיתִי מִידֵּי סַרְיָא וְאַגְנִי גַּבָּךְ, וְלֵימְרוּ דְּנָח נַפְשָׁךְ. וְלִיעַיְּילוּ בָּךְ תַּלְמִידָךְ וְלָא לֵיעוּל בָּךְ אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, דְּלָא לַרְגְּשׁוּן בָּךְ דְּקַלִּיל אַתְּ, דְּאִינְהוּ יָדְעִי דְּחַיָּיא קַלִּיל מִמִּיתָא. עָבֵיד הָכִי. נִכְנַס בּוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִצַּד אֶחָד, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִצַּד אַחֵר. כִּי מְטוֹ לְפִיתְחָא, בְּעוֹ לְמִדְקְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: יֹאמְרוּ: רַבָּן דָּקְרוּ! בְּעוֹ לְמִדְחֲפֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: יֹאמְרוּ: רַבָּן דָּחֲפוּ! פְּתַחוּ לֵיהּ בָּבָא, נְפַק. כִּי מְטָא לְהָתָם, אֲמַר: שְׁלָמָא עֲלָךְ מַלְכָּא, שְׁלָמָא עֲלָךְ מַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִיחַיְּיבַתְּ תְּרֵי (קְטָלָא) [קָטְלִי], חֲדָא דְּלָאו מַלְכָּא אֲנָא וְקָא קָרֵית לִי מַלְכָּא, וְתוּ אִי מַלְכָּא אֲנָא עַד הָאִידָּנָא אַמַּאי לָא אָתֵית לְגַבַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ לָאו מַלְכָּא אֲנָא, אִיבְרָא מַלְכָּא אַתְּ; דְּאִי לָאו מַלְכָּא אַתְּ לָא מִימַּסְרָא יְרוּשָׁלַיִם בִּידָךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַלְּבָנוֹן בְּאַדִּיר יִפּוֹל״ – וְאֵין ״אַדִּיר״ אֶלָּא מֶלֶךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה אַדִּירוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְגוֹ׳״; וְאֵין ״לְבָנוֹן״ אֶלָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה וְהַלְּבָנוֹן״. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: אִי מַלְכָּא אֲנָא, אַמַּאי לָא קָאָתֵית לְגַבַּאי עַד הָאִידָּנָא – בִּרְיוֹנֵי דְּאִית בַּן לָא שָׁבְקִינַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ חָבִית שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ וּדְרָקוֹן כָּרוּךְ עָלֶיהָ, לֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹבְרִין אֶת הֶחָבִית בִּשְׁבִיל דְּרָקוֹן? אִישְׁתִּיק. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״מֵשִׁיב חֲכָמִים אָחוֹר וְדַעְתָּם יְסַכֵּל״, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: שָׁקְלִינַן צְבָתָא וְשָׁקְלִינַן לֵיהּ לִדְרָקוֹן וְקָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ, וְחָבִיתָא שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ. אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתָא פְּרֵיסְתְּקָא עֲלֵיהּ מֵרוֹמִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קוּם, דְּמִית לֵיהּ קֵיסָר, וְאָמְרִי הָנְהוּ חֲשִׁיבֵי דְּרוֹמִי לְאוֹתֹיבָךָ בְּרֵישָׁא. הֲוָה סָיֵים חַד (מסאני) [מְסָאנֵיהּ]. בְּעָא לְמִסְיְימֵהּ לְאַחֲרִינָא, לָא עָיֵיל. בְּעָא לְמִישְׁלְפֵיהּ לְאִידַּךְ, לָא נְפַק. אֲמַר: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תִּצְטַעַר, שְׁמוּעָה טוֹבָה אַתְיָא לָךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁמוּעָה טוֹבָה תְּדַשֶּׁן עָצֶם״. אֶלָּא מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? לֵיתֵי אִינִישׁ דְּלָא מְיַתְּבָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִינֵּיהּ, וְלַחֲלֹיף קַמָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרוּחַ נְכֵאָה תְּיַבֶּשׁ גָּרֶם״. עֲבַד הָכִי, עֲיַיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמֵאַחַר דְּחָכְמִיתוּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי, עַד הָאִידָּנָא אַמַּאי לָא אָתֵיתוּ לְגַבַּאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא נָמֵי אֲמַרִי לָךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵיזָל אָזֵילְנָא, וְאִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא מְשַׁדַּרְנָא; אֶלָּא בָּעֵי מִינַּאי מִידֵּי דְּאֶתֵּן לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תֵּן לִי יַבְנֶה וַחֲכָמֶיהָ, וְשׁוּשִׁילְתָּא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְאָסְווֹתָא דְּמַסַּיִין לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי צָדוֹק. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״מֵשִׁיב חֲכָמִים אָחוֹר וְדַעְתָּם יְסַכֵּל״, אִיבְּעִי לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ: לִשְׁבְּקִינְהוּ הָדָא זִימְנָא. וְהוּא סָבַר: דִּלְמָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא עָבֵיד, וְהַצָּלָה פּוּרְתָּא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי. אָסְווֹתָא דְּמַסַּיִין לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי צָדוֹק – מַאי הִיא? יוֹמָא קַמָּא אַשְׁקְיוּהּ מַיָּא דְפָארֵי, לִמְחַר מַיָּא דְסִיפּוּקָא, לִמְחַר מַיָּא דְקִימְחָא, עַד דִּרְוַוח מְיעֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא פּוּרְתָּא.
§ The Gemara relates: Abba Sikkara was the leader of the zealots [biryonei] of Jerusalem and the son of the sister of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai sent a message to him: Come to me in secret. He came, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Until when will you do this and kill everyone through starvation? Abba Sikkara said to him: What can I do, for if I say something to them they will kill me. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Show me a method so that I will be able to leave the city, and it is possible that through this there will be some small salvation. Abba Sikkara said to him: This is what you should do: Pretend to be sick, and have everyone come and ask about your welfare, so that word will spread about your ailing condition. Afterward bring something putrid and place it near you, so that people will say that you have died and are decomposing. And then, have your students enter to bring you to burial, and let no one else come in so that the zealots not notice that you are still light. As the zealots know that a living person is lighter than a dead person. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai did this. Rabbi Eliezer entered from one side and Rabbi Yehoshua from the other side to take him out. When they arrived at the entrance of the city on the inside, the guards, who were of the faction of the zealots, wanted to pierce him with their swords in order to ascertain that he was actually dead, as was the common practice. Abba Sikkara said to them: The Romans will say that they pierce even their teacher. The guards then wanted at least to push him to see whether he was still alive, in which case he would cry out on account of the pushing. Abba Sikkara said to them: They will say that they push even their teacher. The guards then opened the gate and he was taken out. When Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai reached there, i.e., the Roman camp, he said: Greetings to you, the king; greetings to you, the king. Vespasian said to him: You are liable for two death penalties, one because I am not a king and yet you call me king, and furthermore, if I am a king, why didn’t you come to me until now? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: As for what you said about yourself: I am not a king, in truth, you are a king, if not now, then in the future. As if you are not a king, Jerusalem will not be handed over into your hand, as it is written: “And the Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one” (Isaiah 10:34). And “mighty one” means only a king, as it is written: “And their mighty one shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that “mighty one” parallels “ruler.” And “Lebanon” means only the Temple, as it is stated: “That good mountain and the Lebanon” (Deuteronomy 3:25). And as for what you said with your second comment: If I am a king why didn’t you come to me until now, there are zealots among us who did not allow us to do this. Understanding that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was prepared to ask him not to destroy the Temple, Vespasian said to him: If there is a barrel of honey and a snake [derakon] is wrapped around it, wouldn’t they break the barrel in order to kill the snake? In similar fashion, I am forced to destroy the city of Jerusalem in order to kill the zealots barricaded within it. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was silent and did not answer. In light of this, Rav Yosef later read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25). As Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai should have said the following to Vespasian in response: In such a case, we take tongs, remove the snake, and kill it, and in this way we leave the barrel intact. So too, you should kill the rebels and leave the city as it is. In the meantime, as they were talking, a messenger [feristaka] arrived from Rome, and said to him: Rise, for the emperor has died, and the noblemen of Rome plan to appoint you as their leader and make you the next emperor. At that time Vespasian was wearing only one shoe, and when he tried to put on the other one, it would not go on his foot. He then tried to remove the other shoe that he was already wearing, but it would not come off. He said: What is this? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Be not distressed or troubled, for good tidings have reached you, as it is written: “Good tidings make the bone fat” (Proverbs 15:30), and your feet have grown fatter out of joy and satisfaction. Vespasian said to him: But what is the remedy? What must I do in order to put on my shoe? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Have someone with whom you are displeased come and pass before you, as it is written: “A broken spirit dries the bones” (Proverbs 17:22). He did this, and his shoe went on his foot. Vespasian said to him: Since you are so wise, why didn’t you come to see me until now? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: But didn’t I already tell you? Vespasian said to him: I also told you what I had to say. Vespasian then said to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: I will be going to Rome to accept my new position, and I will send someone else in my place to continue besieging the city and waging war against it. But before I leave, ask something of me that I can give you. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Give me Yavne and its Sages and do not destroy it, and spare the dynasty of Rabban Gamliel and do not kill them as if they were rebels, and lastly give me doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok. Rav Yosef read the following verse about him, and some say that it was Rabbi Akiva who applied the verse to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: “I am the Lord…Who turns wise men backward and makes their knowledge foolish” (Isaiah 44:25), as he should have said to him to leave the Jews alone this time. And why didn’t Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai make this request? He maintained that Vespasian might not do that much for him, and there would not be even a small amount of salvation. Therefore, he made only a modest request, in the hope that he would receive at least that much. The Gemara asks: What was he requesting when he asked for doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok? How did they heal him? The first day they gave him water to drink that contained bran [parei]. The next day they gave him water containing flour mixed with bran [sipuka]. The following day they gave him water containing flour. In this way they slowly restored his ability to eat, allowing his stomach to broaden little by little.
אֲזַל שַׁדַּרֵיהּ לְטִיטוּס. ״וְאָמַר אֵי אֱלֹהֵימוֹ צוּר חָסָיוּ בוֹ״ – זֶה טִיטוּס הָרָשָׁע שֶׁחֵירַף וְגִידֵּף כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה. מָה עָשָׂה? תָּפַשׂ זוֹנָה בְּיָדוֹ וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהִצִּיעַ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְעָבַר עָלֶיהָ עֲבֵירָה. וְנָטַל סַיִיף וְגִידֵּר אֶת הַפָּרוֹכֶת, וְנַעֲשָׂה נֵס וְהָיָה דָּם מְבַצְבֵּץ וְיוֹצֵא, וּכְסָבוּר הָרַג אֶת עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שָׁאֲגוּ צוֹרְרֶיךָ בְּקֶרֶב מוֹעֲדֶיךָ שָׂמוּ אוֹתוֹתָם אוֹתוֹת״. אַבָּא חָנָן אוֹמֵר: ״מִי כָמוֹךָ חֲסִין יָהּ״ – מִי כָמוֹךָ חָסִין וְקָשֶׁה, שֶׁאַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ נִיאוּצוֹ וְגִידּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, וְשׁוֹתֵק. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״מִי כָּמֹכָה בָּאֵלִים ה׳״ – מִי כָּמוֹכָה בָּאִלְּמִים. מָה עָשָׂה? נָטַל אֶת הַפָּרוֹכֶת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ כְּמִין גַּרְגּוּתְנִי, וְהֵבִיא כׇּל כֵּלִים שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהִנִּיחָן בָּהֶן, וְהוֹשִׁיבָן בִּסְפִינָה לֵילֵךְ לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בְּעִירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְכֵן רָאִיתִי רְשָׁעִים קְבוּרִים וָבָאוּ, וּמִמְּקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ יְהַלֵּכוּ, וְיִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ בָעִיר אֲשֶׁר כֵּן עָשׂוּ״ – אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״קְבוּרִים״ אֶלָּא ״קְבוּצִים״; אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״וְיִשְׁתַּכְּחוּ״ אֶלָּא ״וְיִשְׁתַּבְּחוּ״. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, קְבוּרִים מַמָּשׁ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מִילֵּי דְּמִטַּמְּרָן, אִיגַּלְיָין לְהוֹן. עָמַד עָלָיו נַחְשׁוֹל שֶׁבַּיָּם לְטוֹבְעוֹ, אָמַר: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁאֱלֹהֵיהֶם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, אֵין גְּבוּרָתוֹ אֶלָּא בַּמַּיִם; בָּא פַּרְעֹה – טְבָעוֹ בַּמַּיִם, בָּא סִיסְרָא – טְבָעוֹ בַּמַּיִם; אַף הוּא עוֹמֵד עָלַי לְטוֹבְעֵנִי בַּמַּיִם. אִם גִּבּוֹר הוּא, יַעֲלֶה לַיַּבָּשָׁה וְיַעֲשֶׂה עִמִּי מִלְחָמָה! יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: רָשָׁע בֶּן רָשָׁע בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע, בְּרִיָּה קַלָּה יֵשׁ לִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, וְיַתּוּשׁ שְׁמָהּ. אַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ ״בְּרִיָּה קַלָּה״? דְּמַעֲלָנָא אִית לַהּ, וּמַפְּקָנָא לֵית לַהּ. עֲלֵה לַיַּבָּשָׁה וְתַעֲשֶׂה עִמָּהּ מִלְחָמָה. עָלָה לַיַּבָּשָׁה, בָּא יַתּוּשׁ וְנִכְנַס בְּחוֹטְמוֹ, וְנִקֵּר בְּמוֹחוֹ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי נַפָּחָא, שְׁמַע קָל אַרְזַפְתָּא, אִישְׁתִּיק; אֲמַר: אִיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא. כֹּל יוֹמָא מַיְיתוּ נַפָּחָא וּמָחוּ קַמֵּיה., לְגוֹי – יָהֵיב לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע זוּזֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל – אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִיסָּתְיָיךְ דְּקָא חָזֵית בְּסָנְאָךְ. עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין עֲבַד הָכִי; מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּדָשׁ, דָּשׁ. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן עֲרוּבָא: אֲנִי הָיִיתִי בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי, וּכְשֶׁמֵּת פָּצְעוּ אֶת מוֹחוֹ, וּמָצְאוּ בּוֹ כְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר מִשְׁקַל שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: כְּגוֹזָל בֶּן שָׁנָה – מִשְׁקַל שְׁנֵי לִיטְרִין. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, פִּיו שֶׁל נְחוֹשֶׁת וְצִפּוֹרְנָיו שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל. כִּי הֲוָה קָא מָיֵית, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לִיקְלְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא וּבַדַּרוּ לְקִיטְמֵיהּ אַשַּׁב יַמִּי, דְּלָא לַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ אֱלָהָא דִיהוּדָאֵי וְלוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּדִינָא.
§ Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High. What did Titus do when he conquered the Temple? He took a prostitute with his hand, and entered the Holy of Holies with her. He then spread out a Torah scroll underneath him and committed a sin, i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse, on it. Afterward he took a sword and cut into the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And a miracle was performed and blood spurted forth. Seeing the blood, he mistakenly thought that he had killed himself. Here, the term himself is a euphemism for God. Titus saw blood issuing forth from the curtain in God’s meeting place, the Temple, and he took it as a sign that he had succeeded in killing God Himself. As it is stated: “Your enemies roar in the midst of Your meeting place; they have set up their own signs for signs” (Psalms 74:4). Abba Ḥanan says: The verse states: “Who is strong like You, O Lord?” (Psalms 89:9). Who is strong and indurate like You, as You hear the abuse and the blasphemy of that wicked man and remain silent. Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods [elim]” (Exodus 15:11), should be read as: Who is like You among the mute [ilmim], for You conduct Yourself like a mute and remain silent in the face of Your blasphemers. What else did Titus do? He took the curtain and formed it like a large basket, and brought all of the sacred vessels of the Temple and placed them in it. And he put them on a ship to go and be praised in his city that he had conquered Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And so I saw the wicked buried, and come to their rest; but those that had done right were gone from the holy place, and were forgotten in the city; this also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 8:10). Do not read the word as “buried [kevurim].” Rather, read it as collected [kevutzim]. And do not read the word as “and were forgotten [veyishtakeḥu].” Rather, read it as: And they were praised [veyishtabeḥu]. According to this interpretation, the verse speaks of those who will gather and collect items “from the holy place,” the Temple, and be praised in their city about what they had done. There are those who say that the verse is to be read as written, as it is referring to items that were actually buried. This is because even items that had been buried were revealed to them, i.e., Titus and his soldiers, as they found all of the sacred vessels. It is further related about Titus that he was once traveling at sea and a wave rose up against him and threatened to drown him. Titus said: It seems to me that their God, the God of Israel, has power only in water. Pharaoh rose against them and He drowned him in water. Sisera rose against them and He drowned him in water. Here too, He has risen up against me to drown me in water. If He is really mighty, let Him go up on dry land and there wage war against me. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to him: Wicked one, son of a wicked one, grandson of Esau the wicked, for you are among his descendants and act just like him, I have a lowly creature in My world and it is called a gnat. The Gemara interjects: Why is it called a lowly creature? It is called this because it has an entrance for taking in food, but it does not have an exit for excretion. The Gemara resumes its story about Titus. The Divine Voice continued: Go up on dry land and make war with it. He went up on dry land, and a gnat came, entered his nostril, and picked at his brain for seven years. Titus suffered greatly from this until one day he passed by the gate of a blacksmith’s shop. The gnat heard the sound of a hammer and was silent and still. Titus said: I see that there is a remedy for my pain. Every day they would bring a blacksmith who hammered before him. He would give four dinars as payment to a gentile blacksmith, and to a Jew he would simply say: It is enough for you that you see your enemy in so much pain. He did this for thirty days and it was effective until then. From that point forward, since the gnat became accustomed to the hammering, it became accustomed to it, and once again it began to pick away at Titus’s brain. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova said: I was at that time among the noblemen of Rome, and when Titus died they split open his head and found that the gnat had grown to the size of a sparrow weighing two sela. It was taught in another baraita: It was like a one-year-old pigeon weighing two litra. Abaye said: We have a tradition that its mouth was made of copper and its claws were fashioned of iron. When Titus was dying, he said to his attendants: Burn that man, i.e., me, and scatter his ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me and stand me for judgment.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, פִּיו שֶׁל נְחוֹשֶׁת וְצִפּוֹרְנָיו שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל. כִּי הֲוָה קָא מָיֵית, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לִיקְלְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא וּבַדַּרוּ לְקִיטְמֵיהּ אַשַּׁב יַמִּי, דְּלָא לַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ אֱלָהָא דִיהוּדָאֵי וְלוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּדִינָא. אוּנְקְלוֹס בַּר קְלוֹנִיקוּס בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּטִיטוּס הֲוָה. בָּעֵי לְאִיגַּיּוֹרֵי, אֲזַל אַסְּקֵיהּ לְטִיטוּס בִּנְגִידָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲשִׁיב בְּהָהוּא עָלְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ לְאִידַּבּוֹקֵי בְּהו?ּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִילַּיְיהוּ נְפִישִׁין, וְלָא מָצֵית לְקַיּוֹמִינְהוּ. זִיל אִיגָּרִי בְּהוּ בְּהָהוּא עָלְמָא וְהָוֵית רֵישָׁא, דִּכְתִיב: ״הָיוּ צָרֶיהָ לְרֹאשׁ וְגוֹ׳״ – כׇּל הַמֵּיצַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲשָׂה רֹאשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּינֵיהּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּמַאי דִּפְסַיק אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ – כֹּל יוֹמָא מְכַנְּשִׁי לֵיהּ לְקִיטְמֵיהּ וְדָיְינִי לֵיהּ, וְקָלוּ לֵיהּ וּמְבַדְּרוּ [לֵיהּ] אַשַּׁב יַמֵּי. אֲזַל אַסְּקֵיהּ לְבִלְעָם בִּנְגִידָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲשִׁיב בְּהָהוּא עָלְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ לְאִידַּבּוֹקֵי בְּהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֹא תִדְרוֹשׁ שְׁלוֹמָם וְטוֹבָתָם כׇּל הַיָּמִים״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּינֵיהּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע רוֹתַחַת. אֲזַל אַסְּקֵיהּ בִּנְגִידָא לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲשִׁיב בְּהָהוּא עָלְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ לְאִדַּבּוֹקֵי בְּהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹבָתָם דְּרוֹשׁ, רָעָתָם לֹא תִּדְרוֹשׁ, כׇּל הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן כְּאִילּוּ נוֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּינֵיהּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּצוֹאָה רוֹתַחַת. דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל הַמַּלְעִיג עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִידּוֹן בְּצוֹאָה רוֹתַחַת. תָּא חֲזִי מָה בֵּין פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִנְבִיאֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל(ה) כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל בּוּשָׁה, שֶׁהֲרֵי סִיַּיע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת בַּר קַמְצָא, וְהֶחְרִיב אֶת בֵּיתוֹ, וְשָׂרַף אֶת הֵיכָלוֹ.
Abaye said: We have a tradition that its mouth was made of copper and its claws were fashioned of iron. When Titus was dying, he said to his attendants: Burn that man, i.e., me, and scatter his ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me and stand me for judgment. § The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him: That which he decreed against himself, as he undergoes the following: Every day his ashes are gathered, and they judge him, and they burn him, and they scatter him over the seven seas. Onkelos then went and raised Balaam from the grave through necromancy. He said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Balaam said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Balaam said to him: You shall not seek their peace or their welfare all the days (see Deuteronomy 23:7). Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Balaam himself, in the next world? Balaam said to him: He is cooked in boiling semen, as he caused Israel to engage in licentious behavior with the daughters of Moab. Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Jesus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them in this world? Jesus said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye (see Zechariah 2:12). Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being. To conclude the story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gemara cites a baraita. It is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Come and see how great is the power of shame, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, assisted bar Kamtza, who had been humiliated, and due to this humiliation and shame He destroyed His Temple and burned His Sanctuary.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָּדוֹל(ה) כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל בּוּשָׁה, שֶׁהֲרֵי סִיַּיע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת בַּר קַמְצָא, וְהֶחְרִיב אֶת בֵּיתוֹ, וְשָׂרַף אֶת הֵיכָלוֹ.
To conclude the story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gemara cites a baraita. It is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Come and see how great is the power of shame, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, assisted bar Kamtza, who had been humiliated, and due to this humiliation and shame He destroyed His Temple and burned His Sanctuary.
אַתַּרְנְגוֹלָא וְאַתַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא חֲרִיב טוּר מַלְכָּא: דַּהֲווֹ נְהִיגִי כִּי הֲווֹ מַפְּקִי חַתְנָא וְכַלְּתָא, מַפְּקִי קַמַּיְיהוּ תַּרְנְגוֹלָא וְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא, כְּלוֹמַר: פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ כְּתַרְנְגוֹלִים. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף גּוּנְדָּא דְרוֹמָאֵי, שַׁקְלִינְהוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ. נְפַלוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ מְחוֹנְהוּ. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְקֵיסָר: מְרַדוּ בָּךְ יְהוּדָאֵי! אֲתָא עֲלַיְיהוּ. הֲוָה בְּהוּ הָהוּא בַּר דָּרוֹמָא, דַּהֲוָה קָפֵיץ מִילָא וְקָטֵיל בְּהוּ. שַׁקְלֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְתָאגֵיהּ וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ אַאַרְעָא. אֲמַר: רִיבּוֹנֵיהּ דְּעָלְמָא כּוּלֵּיהּ, אִי נִיחָא לָךְ, לָא תִּמְסְרֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא – לְדִידֵיהּ וּלְמַלְכוּתֵיהּ, בִּידֵיהּ דְּחַד גַּבְרָא! אַכְשְׁלֵיהּ פּוּמֵּיהּ לְבַר דָּרוֹמָא, וַאֲמַר: ״הֲלֹא אַתָּה אֱלֹהִים זְנַחְתָּנוּ וְלֹא תֵצֵא אֱלֹהִים בְּצִבְאוֹתֵינוּ״. דָּוִד נָמֵי אָמַר הָכִי! דָּוִד אַתְמוֹהֵי קָא מַתְמַהּ. עָל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, אֲתָא דְּרָקוֹנָא שַׁמְטֵיהּ לְכַרְכְּשֵׁיהּ וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתְרְחִישׁ לִי נִיסָּא, הָא זִימְנָא אֶישְׁבְּקִינְהוּ. שַׁבְקִינְהוּ וַאֲזַל. אִיזְדְּקוּר וַאֲכַלוּ וּשְׁתוֹ, וְאַדְלִיקוּ שְׁרָגֵי, עַד דְּאִיתְחֲזִי בִּלְיוֹנָא דְגוּשְׁפַּנְקָא בְּרָחוֹק מִילָא. אֲמַר: מִיחְדָּא קָא חָדוּ בִּי יְהוּדָאֵי! הֲדַר אֲתָא עֲלַיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: תְּלָת מְאָה אַלְפֵי שְׁלִיפֵי סַיְיפָא עֲיַילוּ לְטוּר מַלְכָּא, וּקְטַלוּ בַּהּ תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי וּתְלָתָא לֵילָווֹתָא; וּבְהָךְ גִּיסָא הִלּוּלֵי וְחִנְגֵי, וְלָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי הָנֵי בְּהָנֵי.
§ It was previously mentioned (55b) that the place known as the King’s Mountain [Tur Malka] was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The details of what happened are as follows: It was customary in that place that when they would lead a bride and groom to their wedding, they would take out a rooster and a hen before them, as if to say in the manner of a good omen: Be fruitful and multiply like chickens. One day a troop [gunda] of Roman soldiers passed by there while a wedding was taking place and took the rooster and hen from them. The residents of the city fell upon them and beat them. The soldiers came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor then came against them in war. Among the residents of the King’s Mountain there was a certain man named bar Deroma who could jump the distance of a mil, and he killed many of the Romans, who were powerless to stand up against him. The emperor then took his crown and set it on the ground as a sign of mourning. He said: Master of the Universe, if it is pleasing to You, do not give over that man, a euphemism for himself, and his kingdom into the hands of only one man. In the end it was the words issuing from his own mouth that caused bar Deroma to stumble, as he uttered this verse in complaint against God: “Have You not rejected us, O God, so that You go not forth, O God, with our hosts?” (Psalms 60:12). The Gemara asks: But did not David also say this? The Gemara answers: David uttered these words as a question, wondering whether they were true, whereas bar Deroma pronounced them as a statement of fact. The Gemara recounts what happened to bar Deroma: He entered an outhouse, a snake came and eviscerated him, and he died. The emperor said: Since a miracle was performed for me, as I had no part in bar Deroma’s death, I will let the rest of the people be this time and take no further action against them. He let them be and went on his way. They leapt about, ate, drank, and lit so many candles in celebration that the image [bilyona] imprinted on a seal [gushpanka] was visible from a distance of a mil. The emperor then said: The Jews are rejoicing over me. So he went back and came against them. Rav Asi says: Three hundred thousand men with drawn swords entered the King’s Mountain and massacred its inhabitants for three days and three nights. And at the same time on the other side of the mountain, weddings and other festivities continued to be celebrated, and they did not know about each other, owing to the enormous size of the place.
אַשָּׁקָא דְרִיסְפַּק חֲרִיב בֵּיתֵּר: דַּהֲווֹ נְהִיגִי כִּי הֲוָה מִתְיְלִיד יָנוֹקָא – שָׁתְלִי אַרְזָא, יָנוֹקְתָּא – שָׁתְלִי תּוּרְנִיתָא; וְכִי הֲווֹ מִינַּסְבִי, קָיְיצִי לְהוּ וְעָבְדִי גְּנָנָא. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָא חָלְפָא בְּרַתֵּיה דְּקֵיסָר, אִתְּבַר שָׁקָא דְרִיסְפַּק. קַצּוּ אַרְזָא וְעַיִּילוּ לַהּ. אֲתוֹ נְפוּל עֲלַיְיהוּ מְחוֹנְהוּ. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְקֵיסָר: מְרַדוּ בָּךְ יְהוּדָאֵי! אֲתָא עֲלַיְיהוּ.
§ It was stated earlier that the city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a carriage. The Gemara explains that it was customary in Beitar that when a boy was born they would plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born they would plant a cypress [tornita]. And when they would later marry each other they would cut down these trees and construct a wedding canopy for them with their branches. One day the emperor’s daughter passed by there and the shaft of the carriage in which she was riding broke. Her attendants chopped down a cedar from among those trees and brought it to her. Owing to the importance that they attached to their custom, the residents of Beitar came and fell upon them and beat them. The attendants came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor then came against them in war.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, סָח לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד מֵאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: בְּבִקְעָה זוֹ הָרַג נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן רַב טַבָּחִים מָאתַיִם וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹא, וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם הָרַג תִּשְׁעִים וְאַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא עַל אֶבֶן אַחַת, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ דָּמָן וְנָגַע בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זְכַרְיָה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדָמִים בְּדָמִים נָגְעוּ״. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ דִּזְכַרְיָה דַּהֲוָה קָא מִרְתַח וְסָלֵיק, אֲמַר: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דַּם זְבָחִים דְּאִשְׁתְּפוּךְ. אַיְיתִי דְּמֵי וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי אָמְרִיתוּ לִי – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָאו – מְסָרֵיקְנָא לְבִשְׂרַיְיכוּ בְּמַסְרְקֵי דְפַרְזְלֵי. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מַאי נֵימָא לָךְ? נְבִיָּיא הֲוָה בַּן דַּהֲוָה קָא מוֹכַח לַן בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא, קַמְינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ וּקְטַלְינַן לֵיהּ, וְהָא כַּמָּה שְׁנִין דְּלָא קָא נָיַיח דְּמֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא מְפַיֵּיסְנָא לֵיהּ. אַיְיתִי סַנְהֶדְרִי גְּדוֹלָה וְסַנְהֶדְרִי קְטַנָּה קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. בַּחוּרִים וּבְתוּלוֹת קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. אַיְיתִי תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זְכַרְיָה, זְכַרְיָה, טוֹבִים שֶׁבָּהֶן אִיבַּדְתִּים, נִיחָא לָךְ דְּאֹבְדִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ? כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי, נָח. בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הַרְהַר תְּשׁוּבָה בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: וּמָה אִם עַל נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, כָּךְ; הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּקְטַל כׇּל הָנֵי נִשְׁמָתָא – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! עֲרַק, אֲזַל שַׁדַּר שְׁטַר פִּרְטְתָא בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וְאִגַּיַּיר. תָּנָא: נַעֲמָן גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב הָיָה; נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן גֵּר צֶדֶק הָיָה; מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל הָמָן לָמְדוּ תּוֹרָה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק; מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל סִיסְרָא לָמְדוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם; מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל סַנְחֵרִיב לָמְדוּ תּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים – מַאן אִינּוּן? שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״נָתַתִּי אֶת דָּמָהּ עַל צְחִיחַ סָלַע לְבִלְתִּי הִכָּסוֹת״.
§ With regard to the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: An old man from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem related to me: In this valley that lies before you, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, killed 211,000 people. And in Jerusalem itself he killed 94,000 people on one stone, until the blood of his victims flowed and touched the blood of Zechariah to fulfill what is stated: “And blood touches blood” (Hosea 4:2). The Gemara clarifies the details of what happened: Nebuzaradan found the blood of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, and saw that it was bubbling up from the ground, and he said: What is this? Those in the Temple said to him: It is sacrificial blood that had been poured there. He brought animal blood, compared it to the blood bubbling up from the ground, and saw that it was not similar to it. Nebuzaradan said to them: If you tell me whose blood this is, it will be well for you. But if not, I will comb your flesh with iron combs. They said to him: What shall we say to you? He was a prophet among us, who used to rebuke us about heavenly matters, and we rose up against him, and killed him (II Chronicles 24:20–22), and for many years now his blood has not settled. Nebuzaradan said to them: I will appease Zechariah. He brought the members of the Great Sanhedrin and of a lesser Sanhedrin and killed them alongside the bubbling blood, but it still did not settle. He then brought young men and virgins and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. He then brought schoolchildren and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. Finally Nebuzaradan said to him: Zechariah, Zechariah, I have killed the best of them. Would it please you if I destroyed them all? When he said this, the blood at last settled. At that moment Nebuzaradan contemplated the idea of repentance and said to himself: If, for the death of one soul, that of Zechariah, God punishes the Jewish people in this manner, then that man, that is to say, I, who has killed all of those souls, all the more so will be I be subject to great punishment from God. He fled, sent to his house a document detailing what was to be done with his property, and converted to Judaism. A Sage taught a baraita relating to this matter: Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram (see II Kings, chapter 5), was not a convert, as he did not accept all of the mitzvot, but rather he was a ger toshav, a gentile who resides in Eretz Israel and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot. Nebuzaradan, by contrast, was a convert, as explained previously. The Gemara adds that some of Haman’s descendants studied Torah in Bnei Brak, and some of Sisera’s descendants taught children Torah in Jerusalem, and some of Sennacherib’s descendants taught Torah in public. Who are they? They are Shemaya and Avtalyon, the teachers of Hillel the Elder. As for the incident involving the blood of Zechariah, this is alluded to by that which is written: “I have set her blood upon the bare rock that it should not be covered” (Ezekiel 24:8).
״הַקּוֹל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – ״הַקּוֹל״, זֶה אַדְרִיָּינוּס קֵיסָר, שֶׁהָרַג בַּאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא עַל שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא, כִּפְלַיִם כְּיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם. ״קוֹל יַעֲקֹב״ – זֶה אַסְפַּסְיָינוּס קֵיסָר, שֶׁהָרַג בִּכְרַךְ בֵּיתֵּר אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת רִבּוֹא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: אַרְבַּעַת אֲלָפִים רִבּוֹא. ״וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – זוֹ מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה, שֶׁהֶחְרִיבָה אֶת בָּתֵּינוּ, וְשָׂרְפָה אֶת הֵיכָלֵנוּ, וְהִגְלִיתָנוּ מֵאַרְצֵנוּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הַקּוֹל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב״ – אֵין לְךָ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב. ״וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – אֵין לְךָ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁנּוֹצַחַת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בְּשׁוֹט לָשׁוֹן תֵּחָבֵא״ – בְּחִירְחוּרֵי לָשׁוֹן תֵּחָבֵא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל, שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ גַּם בָּכִינוּ בְּזׇכְרֵנוּ אֶת צִיּוֹן״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד חוּרְבַּן בַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן וְחוּרְבַּן בַּיִת שֵׁנִי. חוּרְבַּן בַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ גַּם בָּכִינוּ״. בַּיִת שֵׁנִי – דִּכְתִיב: ״זְכוֹר ה׳ לִבְנֵי אֱדוֹם אֵת יוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָים, הָאוֹמְרִים עָרוּ עָרוּ עַד הַיְסוֹד בָּהּ״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת יְלָדִים וִילָדוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ לְקָלוֹן, הִרְגִּישׁוּ בְּעַצְמָן לְמָה הֵן מִתְבַּקְּשִׁים, אָמְרוּ: אִם אָנוּ טוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם – אָנוּ בָּאִין לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא? דָּרַשׁ לָהֶן הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן: ״אָמַר ה׳ מִבָּשָׁן אָשִׁיב, אָשִׁיב מִמְּצוּלוֹת יָם״ – ״מִבָּשָׁן אָשִׁיב״, מִבֵּין שִׁינֵּי אַרְיֵה; ״אָשִׁיב מִמְּצוּלוֹת יָם״, אֵלּוּ שֶׁטּוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ יְלָדוֹת כָּךְ, קָפְצוּ כּוּלָּן וְנָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַיָּם. נָשְׂאוּ יְלָדִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמָן, וְאָמְרוּ: מָה הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְכָךְ – כָּךְ; אָנוּ, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכֵּנוּ לְכָךְ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! אַף הֵם קָפְצוּ לְתוֹךְ הַיָּם. וַעֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי עָלֶיךָ הֹרַגְנוּ כׇל הַיּוֹם, נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ כְּצֹאן טִבְחָה״. וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: זוֹ אִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעָה בָּנֶיהָ – אַתְיוּהּ לְקַמָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּקֵיסָר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּקֵיסָר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל פָּנָי״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״זוֹבֵחַ לֵאלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה׳ אֶחָד״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבוֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ, כִּי ה׳ הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת, אֵין עוֹד״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״אֶת ה׳ הֶאֱמַרְתָּ וְגוֹ׳ וַה׳ הֶאֱמִירְךָ הַיּוֹם״, כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ בְּאֵל אַחֵר, וְאַף הוּא נִשְׁבַּע לָנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִיר אוֹתָנוּ בְּאוּמָּה אַחֶרֶת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר: אֶישְׁדֵּי לָךְ גּוּשְׁפַּנְקָא וּגְחֵין וְשִׁקְלֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵימְרוּ: קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ הַרְמָנָא דְּמַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲבָל עֲלָךְ קֵיסָר, חֲבָל עֲלָךְ קֵיסָר; עַל כְּבוֹד עַצְמְךָ כָּךְ, עַל כְּבוֹד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! אַפְּקוּהּ לְמִיקְטְלֵיהּ, אֲמַרָה לְהוּ אִימֵּיהּ: יַהֲבוּהּ נִיהֲלִי וְאֶינַשְּׁקֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אָמְרָה לוֹ: בָּנַיי, לְכוּ וְאִמְרוּ לְאַבְרָהָם אֲבִיכֶם: אַתָּה עָקַדְתָּ מִזְבֵּחַ אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עָקַדְתִּי שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת! אַף הִיא עָלְתָה לַגַּג וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: זוֹ מִילָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בַּשְּׁמִינִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמַּרְאִין הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּעַצְמָן, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִילֵּי לִיחְזֵי אִינִישׁ בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, בַּר מִשְּׁחִיטָה וְדָבָר אַחֵר.
§ Apropos its discussion of the destruction of the Temple and the calamities that befell Israel, the Gemara cites the verse: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau” (Genesis 27:22), which the Sages expounded as follows: “The voice”; this is the cry stirred up by the emperor Hadrian, who caused the Jewish people to cry out when he killed six hundred thousand on six hundred thousand in Alexandria of Egypt, twice the number of men who left Egypt. “The voice of Jacob”; this is the cry aroused by the emperor Vespasian, who killed four million people in the city of Beitar. And some say: He killed forty million people. “And the hands are the hands of Esau”; this is the wicked kingdom of Rome that destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land. Alternatively, “the voice is the voice of Jacob” means that no prayer is effective in the world unless some member of the seed of Jacob has a part in it. The second clause in the verse, “and the hands are the hands of Esau,” means that no war grants victory unless some member of the seed of Esau has a part in it. And this is what Rabbi Elazar says: The verse that says: “You shall be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (Job 5:21), means: You shall need to hide on account of quarrels provoked by the tongue. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “By the rivers of Babylonia, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion” (Psalms 137:1)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed David the destruction of the First Temple and the destruction of the Second Temple. He saw the destruction of the First Temple, as it is stated: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.” He saw the destruction of the Second Temple, as it is written later in that same psalm: “Remember, O Lord, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem, when they said: Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation” (Psalms 137:7), as the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, “the children of Edom.” Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, and some say that it was Rabbi Ami who says this, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving four hundred boys and girls who were taken as captives for the purpose of prostitution. These children sensed on their own what they were expected to do, and they said: If we commit suicide and drown in the sea, will we come to eternal life in the World-to-Come? The oldest child among them expounded the verse: “The Lord said, I will bring back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” (Psalms 68:23). “I will bring back from Bashan,” i.e., from between the teeth [bein shen] of the lion, and “I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” is referring to those who drown in the sea for the sake of Heaven. When the girls heard this, they all leapt and fell into the sea. The boys then drew an a fortiori inference with regard to themselves and said: If these girls, for whom sexual intercourse with men is their natural way, act in such a manner, then we, for whom sexual intercourse with men is not our natural way, should all the more so conduct ourselves likewise. They too leapt into the sea. Concerning them and others like them the verse states: “As For Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23). And Rav Yehuda said: This verse applies to the woman and her seven sons who died as martyrs for the sake of the sanctification of God’s name. The incident occurred as follows: They brought in the first of the woman’s sons before the emperor and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2). They immediately took him out and killed him. And they then brought in another son before the emperor, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You shall have no other gods beside Me” (Exodus 20:3). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son before the emperor, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “He that sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You shall not bow down to any other god” (Exodus 34:14). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “Know therefore this today, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You have avouched the Lord this day to be your God…and the Lord has avouched you this day to be a people for His own possession” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18). We already took an oath to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that we will not exchange Him for a different god, and He too has taken an oath to us that He will not exchange us for another nation. It was the youngest brother who had said this, and the emperor pitied him. Seeking a way to spare the boy’s life, the emperor said to him: I will throw down my seal before you; bend over and pick it up, so that people will say that he has accepted the king’s authority [harmana]. The boy said to him: Woe [ḥaval] to you, Caesar, woe to you, Caesar. If you think that for the sake of your honor I should fulfill your command and do this, then for the sake of the honor of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so should I fulfill His command. As they were taking him out to be killed, his mother said to them: Give him to me so that I may give him a small kiss. She said to him: My son, go and say to your father Abraham, You bound one son to the altar, but I bound seven altars. She too in the end went up to the roof, fell, and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9), as she raised her children to be devoted in their service of God. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says concerning the verse: “For Your sake we are killed all the day long” (Psalms 44:23), that this is referring to circumcision, which was given for the eighth day, as the blood of our newborn sons is spilled for the sake of the covenant with God. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This verse was stated in reference to Torah scholars who demonstrate the halakhot of slaughter on themselves, meaning that they demonstrate on their own bodies how ritual slaughter should be performed and occasionally injure themselves in the process. This is as Rava says: A person may demonstrate anything using himself to illustrate the act except for slaughter and another matter, a euphemism for sexual intercourse.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: זוֹ מִילָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בַּשְּׁמִינִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמַּרְאִין הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּעַצְמָן, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִילֵּי לִיחְזֵי אִינִישׁ בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, בַּר מִשְּׁחִיטָה וְדָבָר אַחֵר. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּמִיתִין עַצְמָן עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה קְצוּצֵי תְפִילִּין נִמְצְאוּ בְּרָאשֵׁי הֲרוּגֵי בֵיתֵּר. רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: שָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל אַרְבָּעִים אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אַרְבָּעִים קוּפּוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא דְּרֵישָׁא, הָא דִּדְרָעָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין מוֹחַ נִמְצְאוּ עַל אֶבֶן אַחַת. עוּלָּא אָמַר: תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא וְאִיתֵּימָא שֵׁילָא בַּר מָרִי: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״בַּת בָּבֶל הַשְּׁדוּדָה, אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳, אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת עוֹלָלַיִךְ אֶל הַסָּלַע״. ״בְּנֵי צִיּוֹן הַיְקָרִים הַמְסוּלָּאִים בַּפָּז״ – מַאי ״מְסוּלָּאִים בַּפָּז״? אִילֵּימָא דַּהֲווֹ מְחַפִּי בְּפִיזָּא, וְהָאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: תַּרְתֵּי מַתְקָלֵי אִיסְתֵּירֵי פִּיזָּא נְחוּת בְּעָלְמָא – חֲדָא בְּרוֹמִי, וַחֲדָא בְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא! אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ מְגַנִּין אֶת הַפָּז בְּיוֹפְיָין. מֵעִיקָּרָא, חֲשִׁיבִי דְרוֹמָאֵי הֲווֹ נָקְטִי בִּלְיוֹנָא דְגוּשְׁפַּנְקָא, וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁי עַרְסַיְיהוּ; מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, מַיְיתוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסְרִי בְּכַרְעֵי דְּפוּרַיְיהוּ, וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: הָא, הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״גַּם כׇּל חֳלִי וְכׇל מַכָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא כָתוּב בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״. אֲמַר: כַּמָּה מְרַחַיקְנָא מִדּוּכְתָּא פְּלָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִינְּגֵד פּוּסְתָּא וּפַלְגָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מְטַאי לְגַבֵּיהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיכִי לָךְ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי מִכֹּל בְּנוֹת עִירִי״? אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת הָיוּ בִּכְרַךְ בֵּיתֵּר, וּבְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת הָיוּ בָּהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת מְלַמְּדֵי תִּינוֹקוֹת, וְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הָיוּ לְפָנָיו אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, וּכְשֶׁהָיָה אוֹיֵב נִכְנָס לְשָׁם הָיוּ דּוֹקְרִין אוֹתָן בְּחוֹטְרֵיהֶן. וּכְשֶׁגָּבַר אוֹיֵב וּלְכָדוּם, כְּרָכוּם בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם וְהִצִּיתוּם בָּאֵשׁ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה שֶׁהָלַךְ לִכְרַךְ גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּרוֹמִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תִּינוֹק אֶחָד יֵשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. הָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, אָמַר: ״מִי נָתַן לִמְשִׁיסָּה יַעֲקֹב וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְבוֹזְזִים״? עָנָה אוֹתוֹ תִּינוֹק וְאָמַר: ״הֲלֹא ה׳ זוּ חָטָאנוּ לוֹ וְלֹא אָבוּ בִדְרָכָיו הָלוֹךְ וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּתוֹרָתוֹ״. אָמַר: מוּבְטְחַנִי בּוֹ שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָעֲבוֹדָה! שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁאֶפְדֶּנּוּ בְּכׇל מָמוֹן שֶׁפּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ בְּמָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִין עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבִתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ לִשְׁנֵי אֲדוֹנִים. לְיָמִים נִזְדַּוְּוגוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּמְקוֹם אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לִי עֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹפְיוֹ בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לִי שִׁפְחָה שֶׁאֵין בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ כְּיוֹפְיָהּ. אָמְרוּ: בּוֹא וְנַשִּׂיאֵם זֶה לָזֶה, וּנְחַלֵּק בַּוְּולָדוֹת. הִכְנִיסוּם לְחֶדֶר. זֶה יָשַׁב בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית זֶה, וְזוֹ יָשְׁבָה בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית זֶה, זֶה אוֹמֵר: אֲנִי, כֹּהֵן בֶּן כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה?! וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אֲנִי, כֹּהֶנֶת בַּת כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶנָּשֵׂא לְעֶבֶד?! וּבָכוּ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, הִכִּירוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְנָפְלוּ זֶה עַל זֶה וְגָעוּ בִּבְכִיָּה עַד שֶׁיָּצְאָה נִשְׁמָתָן. וַעֲלֵיהֶן קוֹנֵן יִרְמְיָה: ״עַל אֵלֶּה אֲנִי בוֹכִיָּה, עֵינִי עֵינִי יוֹרְדָה מַּיִם״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת, וְצָפְנַת בַּת פְּנִיאֵל שְׁמָהּ; ״צָפְנַת״ – שֶׁהַכֹּל צוֹפִין בְּיוֹפְיָהּ, ״בַּת פְּנִיאֵל״ – בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים; שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּל בָּהּ שַׁבַּאי כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. לְמָחָר הִלְבִּישָׁהּ שִׁבְעָה חֲלוּקִים, וְהוֹצִיאָהּ לְמוֹכְרָהּ. בָּא אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְכוֹעָר בְּיוֹתֵר, אָמַר לוֹ: הַרְאֵנִי אֶת יוֹפְיָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: רֵיקָא! אִם אַתָּה רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח – קַח, שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹפְיָהּ בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי כֵן. הִפְשִׁיטָהּ שִׁשָּׁה חֲלוּקִים, וּשְׁבִיעִי קְרָעַתּוּ וְנִתְפַּלְּשָׁה בָּאֵפֶר, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם עָלֵינוּ לֹא חַסְתָּ, עַל קְדוּשַּׁת שִׁמְךָ (הַגִּבּוֹר) [הַגָּדוֹל] לָמָּה לֹא תָּחוּס. וְעָלֶיהָ קוֹנֵן יִרְמְיָה: ״בַּת עַמִּי חִגְרִי שָׂק וְהִתְפַּלְּשִׁי בָאֵפֶר, אֵבֶל יָחִיד עֲשִׂי לָךְ מִסְפַּד תַּמְרוּרִים, כִּי פִתְאוֹם יָבֹא הַשּׁוֹדֵד עָלֵינוּ״ – ״עָלַיִךְ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״עָלֵינוּ״; כִּבְיָכוֹל, עָלַי וְעָלַיִךְ בָּא שׁוֹדֵד.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says concerning the verse: “For Your sake we are killed all the day long” (Psalms 44:23), that this is referring to circumcision, which was given for the eighth day, as the blood of our newborn sons is spilled for the sake of the covenant with God. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This verse was stated in reference to Torah scholars who demonstrate the halakhot of slaughter on themselves, meaning that they demonstrate on their own bodies how ritual slaughter should be performed and occasionally injure themselves in the process. This is as Rava says: A person may demonstrate anything using himself to illustrate the act except for slaughter and another matter, a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: These people in the verse are Torah scholars who kill themselves over the words of Torah, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The words of the Torah endure only for one who kills himself over them, as it is stated: “This is the Torah, when a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Forty se’a of phylactery boxes were found on the heads of those killed in Beitar. Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, says: There were found three large baskets each holding forty se’a of phylactery boxes. And it was taught in a baraita: There were forty large baskets each holding three se’a. The Gemara notes: And these Sages do not disagree: This Sage is referring to phylacteries of the head, whereas this Sage is referring to phylacteries of the arm, for owing to the different manners in which they are fashioned, they are also different in size. Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9). § The verse states: “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold” (Lamentations 4:2). What is the meaning of the expression “comparable to fine gold”? If we say that it means they were covered in fine gold [piza], this is difficult; but didn’t the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Two istira weights of fine gold came down into the world, one in Rome and one in all the rest of the world. If so, it is certainly impossible to cover the inhabitants of Jerusalem with fine gold, as there is not enough of it in the entire world to do so. Rather, this means that they would be so attractive that they would disgrace fine gold because of their beauty. The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome. It is related that it once happened that they did this to two children, and one of them said to the other: Where is this affliction written in the Torah? The other said to him: As it is written: “Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 28:61). The first one said: How far am I in my studies from this, i.e., how much more would I have had to learn in order to reach this verse? The other said: Had you gone on one and a half columns [pusta], you would have reached this. The first child said to the other: Had I reached this verse, I would not have needed you, as I would have known on my own that the verse was speaking about this. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affects my soul because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Beitar, and in each and every one of them there were four hundred schoolteachers, and each and every one of these teachers had four hundred schoolchildren. And when the enemy entered there, these schoolchildren stabbed them with their pens [beḥotreihen]. And when the enemy prevailed and caught them, they wrapped the children in their scrolls and lit them on fire. The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?” Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world. The two masters said: Come, let us marry these two slaves to one another and divide the children born to them between us, as they will certainly be very beautiful. They secluded them in a room. This one, the son, sat in one corner, and that one, the daughter, sat in the other corner. He said: I am a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I marry a female slave? And she said: I am the daughter of a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I be married to a male slave? And they wept all through the night. When dawn arrived they recognized each other and saw that they were brother and sister. They fell on each other and burst into tears until their souls departed due to their great distress. And with regard to them and others like them, Jeremiah lamented: “For these things I weep; my eye, my eye runs down with water” (Lamentations 1:16). Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze [tzofin] at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter [bat] of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum [lifnai velefnim] of the Temple. And it happened that she was taken captive and her captor abused and raped her all night. The next day he dressed her in seven garments and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was especially ugly came and said to the man who was selling her: Show me her beauty. He said to him: Good-for-nothing, if you wish to buy her then buy her, for there is no beauty like hers in all of the world. The potential buyer said to the seller: Even so, I wish to see for myself. He removed the six outermost garments, and she herself tore the seventh, and rolled in ashes. She said before God: Master of the Universe, even if You have shown no pity to us, and have allowed us to be disgraced in this way, why have You not shown pity to the sanctity of Your mighty name by which we are called? And with regard to her and others like her, Jeremiah lamented: “O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make you mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us” (Jeremiah 6:26). It is not stated: Upon you, but rather “upon us,” for the spoiler shall come, as it were, both over Me and over you. God Himself shares this pain and His name is also disgraced.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשְׁקוּ גֶּבֶר וּבֵיתוֹ וְאִישׁ וְנַחֲלָתוֹ״? מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּאֵשֶׁת רַבּוֹ, וּשְׁוַלְיָא דְנַגָּרֵי הֲוָה. פַּעַם אַחַת הוּצְרַךְ (רַבּוֹ) לִלְוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ: שַׁגֵּר אִשְׁתְּךָ אֶצְלִי וְאַלְוֶנָּה. שִׁיגֵּר אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, שָׁהָה עִמָּהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. קָדַם וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִשְׁתִּי שֶׁשִּׁיגַּרְתִּי לְךָ הֵיכָן הִיא? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי פְּטַרְתִּיהָ לְאַלְתַּר, וְשָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַתִּינוֹקוֹת נִתְעַלְּלוּ בָּהּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה? אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ לַעֲצָתִי, גָּרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי אַלְוְוךָ וְתֵן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. עָמַד זֶה וְגֵרְשָׁהּ, הָלַךְ הוּא וּנְשָׂאָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְפוֹרְעוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַעֲשֵׂה עִמִּי בְּחוֹבְךָ. וְהָיוּ הֵם יוֹשְׁבִים וְאוֹכְלִים וְשׁוֹתִין, וְהוּא הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, וְהָיוּ דְּמָעוֹת נוֹשְׁרוֹת מֵעֵינָיו וְנוֹפְלוֹת בְּכוֹסֵיהֶן. וְעַל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נִתְחַתֵּם גְּזַר דִּין. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַל שְׁתֵּי פְתִילוֹת בְּנֵר אֶחָד. לָקַח מִן הַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן וְכוּ׳: אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לוֹ: ״לֵךְ, חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר – קָנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף בִּשְׁטָר נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב לוֹ אַחְרָיוּת.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:2)? There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes on his master’s wife, and he was a carpenter’s apprentice [shulya]. One time his master needed to borrow some money, and his apprentice said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. He sent his wife to him, and the apprentice stayed with her for three days. He then went back to his master before she did, and the master said to him: Where is my wife whom I sent to you? The apprentice said to him: I sent her back immediately, but I heard that the youth abused and raped her on the way. The master said to his apprentice: What shall I do? The apprentice said to him: If you listen to my advice, divorce her. He said to him: But her marriage contract is large and I do not have the money to pay it. The apprentice said to him: I will lend you the money, and you will give her payment of her marriage contract. The master arose and divorced her, and the apprentice went and married her. When the time came that the debt was due, and he did not have the means with which to repay it, the apprentice said to his master: Come and work off your debt with me. And they, the apprentice and his wife, would sit and eat and drink, while he, the woman’s first husband, would stand over them and serve them their drinks. And tears would drop from his eyes and fall into their cups, and at that time the Jewish people’s sentence was sealed, for remaining silent in the face of this injustice. And some say that the Jewish people were punished for two wicks in one lamp, a euphemism for the sin of adultery committed by this couple while the master was still married to the woman. § The Gemara returns to the mishna, which states: If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, and afterward returned and purchased the same field from the prior landowner, so that he will be considered the legal owner of the field, his purchase is void. Rav says: They taught that the purchase is void only in a case where the prior owner says to the buyer when he came to acquire the field from him: Go, take possession of the field and thereby acquire it, as in such a case the prior owner can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. But if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer acquires the field. And Shmuel says: Even if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire it unless the prior owner writes him a guarantee that if the field is repossessed by a creditor of the prior owner, the prior owner, who sold him the field, will compensate him for his loss, as by writing this guarantee he demonstrates that this is a true sale.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara. The Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. They established a fixed order for the irrigation of fields, so that people would not quarrel over who is given precedence. Animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps are not acquired by the one who set the traps until he actually takes possession of them. Nevertheless, if another person comes and takes them, it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. Similarly, a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. If a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery. One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.
שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי גָלִיל לְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: מַהוּ לִקְרוֹת בְּחוּמָּשִׁים בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּצִיבּוּר? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתָא שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, וּפַשְׁטוּהָ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁחָסַר יְרִיעָה אַחַת – אֵין קוֹרִין בּוֹ.
The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: What is the halakha with regard to reading from ḥumashim, i.e., scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, in the synagogue in public? Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, but an answer was not readily available to him either. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa came and asked this question in the study hall, and they resolved the difficulty from that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Torah scroll that is missing even one sheet of parchment, one may not read from it in public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading.
וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם מְחַסַּר בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ, הָכָא לָא מְחַסַּר בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין קוֹרְאִין בְּחוּמָּשִׁין בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד צִבּוּר.
The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so, i.e., this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. There, it is lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas here, it is not lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as it contains a complete book. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community.
וְרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הַאי סֵפֶר אַפְטָרָתָא – אָסוּר לְמִקְרֵי בֵּיהּ בְּשַׁבָּת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְטַלְטוֹלֵי נָמֵי אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא לָא חֲזֵי לְמִיקְרֵי בֵּיהּ. וְלָא הִיא, שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי וּשְׁרֵי לְמִיקְרֵי בֵּיהּ – דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מְעַיְּינִי בְּסִפְרָא דְאַגַּדְתָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא; וְהָא לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: מַהוּ לִכְתּוֹב מְגִילָּה לְתִינוֹק לְהִתְלַמֵּד בָּהּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה; תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: תּוֹרָה חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה. תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה – כֵּיוָן דִּמְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה, כּוֹתְבִין; אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִידְּבַק – אִידְּבַק. תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה – כֵּיוָן דַּחֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין; אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – כָּתְבִינַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין. וּמָה טַעַם? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אַף הִיא עָשְׂתָה טַבְלָא שֶׁל זָהָב, שֶׁפָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה כְּתוּבָה עָלֶיהָ! אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּאָלֶף בֵּית. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתֵב, רוֹאֶה וְכוֹתֵב מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא! אֵימָא: ״כְּמָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא״. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתֵב, רוֹאֶה בַּטַּבְלָא וְכוֹתֵב מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא. מָה הוּא כָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא? ״אִם שָׁכַב״, ״אִם לֹא שָׁכַב״! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּסֵירוּגִין. כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין מְגִילָּה לְתִינוֹק לְהִתְלַמֵּד בָּהּ, וְאִם דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁלִים – מוּתָּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּבְרֵאשִׁית – עַד דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל. בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – עַד ״וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: תּוֹרָה – מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָז אָמַרְתִּי הִנֵּה בָאתִי בִּמְגִילַּת סֵפֶר כָּתוּב עָלָי״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: תּוֹרָה – חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָקוֹחַ אֵת סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״.
And Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited to publicly read the haftara, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, on Shabbat, from a scroll containing only the haftarot. What is the reason for this? It is because this type of scroll may not be written, as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: To handle such a scroll on Shabbat is also prohibited. What is the reason for this? It is because it is not fit to be read. Consequently, it is treated as set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so; rather, it is permitted to handle such a scroll and it is permitted to read from it. And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.” Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study it? The Gemara notes: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once. The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book. On the one hand it is possible to say that since it was given from the outset as a complete book, one may not write it today in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one could say that since it is not always possible to write a complete Torah, one may write it in separate scrolls. Rabba said to him: One may not write the Torah in separate scrolls. And what is the reason? Because one may not write a scroll that is only part of the Torah. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Yoma 37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet as a gift for the Temple on which the Torah portion discussing a sota was written. When the priest would write the scroll of a sota in the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e., only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the sota scroll would remember what to write. The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: When the priest writes the sota scroll, he looks at and writes that which is written on the tablet, which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the baraita and say that it should read as follows: He looks at and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written. The Gemara raised an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? “If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written by alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted. The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in the following baraita: One may not write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study, but if the writer’s intention is to complete the scroll, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the book of Genesis he may write a scroll from the beginning until the generation of the flood. In Torat Kohanim, the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning until “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1). The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תּוֹרָה – רוֹב בִּכְתָב וּמִיעוּט עַל פֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רוֹב עַל פֶּה וּמִיעוּט בִּכְתָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״. וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי״! הָהוּא, אַתְמוֹהֵי קָא מַתְמַהּ: אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי?! הֲלֹא ״כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ״! וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״! הַהוּא – מִשּׁוּם דְּתַקִּיפִי לְמִיגְמְרִינְהוּ. דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר נַחְמָנִי, מְתוּרְגְּמָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, כְּתִיב: ״כְּתוֹב לְךָ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – הָא כֵּיצַד? דְּבָרִים שֶׁבִּכְתָב אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן עַל פֶּה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן בִּכְתָב, דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תָּנָא: ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵלֶּה אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב, וְאִי אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב הֲלָכוֹת.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted in writing, while the minority was transmitted orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted orally [al peh], while the minority was transmitted in writing, as it is stated with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covenant was taught orally. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse is not a statement, but rather a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: For did I write for him the greater part of My Torah? In that case they, the Jewish people, would be reckoned as strangers, meaning that there would be no difference between them and the nations of the world if everything was written down. Rather, the majority of the Torah must remain an oral tradition. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, as well, isn’t it written: “For on the basis of these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse, which indicates that the covenant was based on that which was taught by oral tradition, is stated due to the fact that it is more difficult to learn matters transmitted orally, but not because these matters are more numerous than those committed to writing. 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.
דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר נַחְמָנִי, מְתוּרְגְּמָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, כְּתִיב: ״כְּתוֹב לְךָ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – הָא כֵּיצַד? דְּבָרִים שֶׁבִּכְתָב אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן עַל פֶּה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן בִּכְתָב, דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תָּנָא: ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵלֶּה אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב, וְאִי אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב הֲלָכוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא כָּרַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּרִית עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
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. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were transmitted orally [be’al peh], as it is stated: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27).
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה מוּשְׁלָךְ לְבוֹר, וְאָמַר: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת קוֹלוֹ יִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. גְּמָ׳ וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא שֵׁד הוּא! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּשֶׁרָאוּ לוֹ דְּמוּת אָדָם. אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִידְּמוֹיֵי אִידְּמוֹ! דַּחֲזוֹ לֵיהּ בָּבוּאָה. אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ בָּבוּאָה! דַּחֲזוֹ לֵיהּ בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה. וְדִלְמָא אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לִימְּדַנִי יוֹנָתָן בְּנִי: בָּבוּאָה אִית לְהוּ, בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה לֵית לְהוּ. וְדִלְמָא צָרָה הִיא! תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה, כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין.
MISHNA: With regard to one who was thrown into a pit and thought that he would die there, and he said that anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, those who hear him should write this bill of divorce and give it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a demon, as no one saw the person in the pit. Rav Yehuda says: It is referring to a case where they saw that the being in the pit has human form. The Gemara objects: Demons too can appear in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has a shadow [bavua]. The Gemara objects: Demons also have a shadow. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara objects: And perhaps demons too have the shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina says: Yonatan my son taught me that demons have a shadow but they do not have the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the source of the voice in the pit is a rival wife of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger, when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, one writes and gives a bill of divorce even though the people instructed to do so are not familiar with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue.
דְּתַנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה הָיָה מוֹנֶה שִׁבְחָן שֶׁל חֲכָמִים: רַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָכָם וְסוֹפֵר; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – חָכָם לִכְשֶׁיִּרְצֶה; רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – גַּל שֶׁל אֱגוֹזִין; רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – חֲנוּת מְיוּזֶּנֶת; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – אוֹצָר בָּלוּם; רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי – קוּפַּת הָרוֹכְלִים; רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה – קוּפָּה שֶׁל בְּשָׂמִים; מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב – קַב וְנָקִי; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – נִמּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ; רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – טוֹחֵן הַרְבֵּה וּמוֹצִיא קִימְעָא. תָּנָא: מְשַׁכֵּחַ קִימְעָא, וּמַה שֶּׁמּוֹצִיא – אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶלָּא סוּבִּין. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְתַלְמִידָיו: בָּנַיי, שְׁנוּ מִדּוֹתַי, שֶׁמִּדּוֹתַי תְּרוּמוֹת מִתְּרוּמוֹת מִידּוֹתָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
This is as it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda would recount the praise of the Sages by characterizing each of them: Rabbi Meir, a scholar and scribe; Rabbi Yehuda, a scholar when he chooses to be one; Rabbi Tarfon, a pile of nuts, as, just as when one removes a nut from a pile all the other nuts fall, so too, when a student would ask Rabbi Tarfon with regard to one matter, he would cite sources from all the disciplines of the Torah; Rabbi Yishmael, a well-stocked store; Rabbi Akiva, a full storehouse; Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, a peddler’s basket, in which there is a small amount of each product; Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a basket of fragrant spices, as everything he says is reasonable; the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is measured [kav] and immaculate; Rabbi Yosei, his reasoning accompanies his statements; Rabbi Shimon grinds much and removes little. It is taught in explanation: Rabbi Shimon would forget little of his studies, and what he removed from his memory, he removed only chaff. And likewise, Rabbi Shimon said to his students: My sons, accept my halakhic rulings, as my rulings are the finest rulings of the finest rulings of Rabbi Akiva.
מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס, וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וַאֲחָזוֹ קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״לֹא תִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ״ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ״, וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ – בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו – ״לָאו״, וְעַל הֵן – ״הֵן״, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. גְּמָ׳ מַאי קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּנַכְתֵיהּ חַמְרָא חַדְתָּא דְּמַעְצַרְתָּא. וְלִיתְנֵי: מִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ יַיִן חָדָשׁ! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּהָא רוּחָא – ״קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס״ שְׁמַהּ. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לִקְמִיעָא. מַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לִי אֵם: לְשִׁימְשָׁא בַּת יוֹמָא – כּוּזָא דְמַיָּא. בַּת תְּרֵי יוֹמֵי – סִיכּוּרֵי. בַּת תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי – בִּשְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא. לְשִׁימְשָׁא עַתִּיקְתָּא – לַיְתֵי תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא אוּכַּמְתִּי, וְלִיקְרְעַהּ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב, וְלִיגַלְּחֵיהּ לִמְצִיעֲתָא דְרֵישֵׁיהּ – וְלוֹתְבֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְנַנְּחֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ עַד (דְּמִיסְּרַךְ); וְלִינְחוֹת וְלֵיקוּם בְּמַיָּא עַד צַוְּארֵיהּ – עַד דְּחָלֵישׁ עָלְמָא עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלֵימוֹד, וְלִסְלַיק וְלִיתֵיב. וְאִי לָא – לֵיכוֹל כַּרָּתֵי, וְלִינְחוֹת וְלֵיקוּם בְּמַיָּא עַד צַוְּארֵיהּ – עַד דְּחָלֵישׁ עָלְמָא עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלֵימוֹד, וְלִסְלַיק וְלִיתֵיב. לְשִׁימְשָׁא – בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא. לְתַלְגָא – בִּישְׂרָא שַׁמִּינָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא חַיָּיא.
MISHNA: In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid. The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the nature of the temporary insanity mentioned in the mishna? Shmuel said: The reference is to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine that came directly from the winepress. The Gemara asks: And let the tanna of the mishna then teach explicitly: With regard to one who was afflicted by drinking new wine. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the name of the demon that causes this insanity is Kordeyakos. The Gemara asks: What difference is there? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to writing an amulet to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat red meat roasted over coals and drink wine diluted [marka] with a large amount of water. Abaye said: My mother told me that the remedy for a day-old fever, i.e., one contracted that day, is drinking a jug [kuza] of water. The remedy for a fever two days old is bloodletting [sikurei]. The remedy for a fever three days old is eating red meat roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. For an old fever that lasts for an extended period of time, the remedy is to bring a black hen, tear it lengthwise and widthwise, shave the middle of the sufferer’s head, and place the hen upon it, and leave the hen upon him until it adheres to his head due to the blood. And let him descend into the water and let him stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him, i.e., he feels faint. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest. And if he is not able to undergo this process, let him eat leeks, and descend into the water, and stand in the water up to his neck until the world appears faint for him. And let him submerge himself in the water, and emerge from the water and sit and rest. The remedy for a fever is eating red meat that was roasted over coals and drinking diluted wine. A remedy for the chills is eating fatty meat that was roasted over coals and drinking undiluted wine.
״עָשִׂיתִי לִי שָׁרִים וְשָׁרוֹת וְתַעֲנוּגוֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת״; ״שָׁרִים וְשָׁרוֹת״ – אֵלּוּ מִינֵי זֶמֶר, ״וְתַעֲנוּגוֹת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם״ – אֵלּוּ בְּרֵיכוֹת וּמֶרְחֲצָאוֹת, ״שִׁדָּה וְשִׁדּוֹת״ – הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: שֵׁידָה וְשֵׁידְתִין. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: שִׁידְּתָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת מִינֵי שֵׁדִים הָיוּ בְּשִׁיחִין, וְשֵׁידָה עַצְמָהּ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה הִיא. אָמַר מָר, הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: שֵׁידָא וְשֵׁידְתִין. שֵׁידָה וְשֵׁידְתִין – לְמַאי אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַבַּיִת בְּהִבָּנוֹתוֹ אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה וְגוֹ׳״ – אָמַר לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן: הֵיכִי אֶעֱבֵיד? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִיכָּא שָׁמִירָא דְּאַיְיתִי מֹשֶׁה לְאַבְנֵי אֵפוֹד. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הֵיכָא אִישְׁתְּכַח? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי שֵׁידָה וְשֵׁידְתִין כַּבְשִׁינְהוּ אַהֲדָדֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּיָדְעִי וּמְגַלּוּ לָךְ. אַיְיתִי שֵׁידָה וְשֵׁידְתִין כַּבְשִׁינְהוּ אַהֲדָדֵי, אָמְרִי: אֲנַן לָא יָדְעִינַן, דִּילְמָא אַשְׁמְדַאי – מַלְכָּא דְשֵׁידֵי, יָדַע. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הֵיכָא אִיתֵיהּ? אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אִיתֵיהּ בְּטוּרָא פְּלָן. כַּרְיָא לֵיהּ בֵּירָא, וּמַלְיָא לֵיהּ מַיָּא, וּמִיכַּסְּיָא בְּטִינָּרָא, וַחֲתִימָה בְּגוּשְׁפַּנְקֵיהּ; וְכֹל יוֹמָא סָלֵיק לִרְקִיעָא וְגָמַר מְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא, וְנָחֵית לְאַרְעָא וְגָמַר מְתִיבְתָּא דְאַרְעָא; וְאָתֵי סָיֵיר לֵיהּ לְגוּשְׁפַּנְקֵיהּ וּמְגַלֵּי לֵיהּ וְשָׁתֵי, וּמְכַסֵּי לֵיהּ וְחָתֵים לֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לִבְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע, יְהַב לֵיהּ שׁוּשִׁילְתָּא דַּחֲקִיק עֲלַהּ שֵׁם, וְעִזְקְתָא דַּחֲקִיק עֲלַהּ שֵׁם, וּגְבָבֵי דְעַמְרָא, וְזִיקֵי דְחַמְרָא. אֲזַל, כְּרָא בֵּירָא מִתַּתַּאי, וּשְׁפִינְהוּ לְמַיָּא, וְסַתְמִינְהוּ בִּגְבָבֵי דְעַמְרָא; וּכְרָא בֵּירָא מֵעִילַּאי, (וְשַׁפְכִינְהוּ) [וְשַׁפְכֵיהּ] לְחַמְרָא; וְטַמִּינְהוּ. סְלֵיק יְתֵיב בְּאִילָנָא כִּי אֲתָא סַיְירֵיהּ לְגוּשְׁפַּנְקָא, גַּלְּיֵיהּ, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ חַמְרָא. אֲמַר: כְּתִיב: ״לֵץ הַיַּיִן הוֹמֶה שֵׁכָר, וְכׇל שׁוֹגֶה בּוֹ לֹא יֶחְכָּם״, וּכְתִיב: ״זְנוּת וְיַיִן וְתִירוֹשׁ יִקַּח לֵב״. לָא אִישְׁתִּי. כִּי צָחֵי, לָא סַגִּיא לֵיהּ; אִישְׁתִּי, רְוָא וּגְנָא. נְחֵית, אֲתָא, שְׁדָא בֵּיהּ שׁוּשִׁילְתָּא, סְתָמֵיהּ. כִּי אִתְּעַר, הֲוָה קָא מִיפַּרְזַל; אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא דְמָרָךְ עֲלָךְ! שְׁמָא דְּמָרָךְ עֲלָךְ! כִּי נָקֵיט לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי, מְטָא דִּיקְלָא – חַף בֵּיהּ, שַׁדְיֵיהּ; מְטָא לְבֵיתָא – שַׁדְיֵיהּ; מְטָא גַּבֵּי כּוּבָּא דְּהָהִיא אַרְמַלְתָּא, נְפַקָא אִיחַנַּנָא לֵיהּ. כְּפָא לְקוֹמְתֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אִיתְּבַר בֵּיהּ גַּרְמָא. אֲמַר, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלָשׁוֹן רַכָּה תִּשְׁבׇּר גָּרֶם״. חֲזָא סַמְיָא דַּהֲוָה קָא טָעֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא, אַסְּקֵיהּ לְאוֹרְחֵיהּ. חֲזָא רַוְיָא דַּהֲוָה קָא טָעֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא, אַסְּקֵיהּ לְאוֹרְחֵיהּ. חֲזָא חֶדְוְותָא דַּהֲווֹ קָמְחַדִּי לַהּ, בְּכָה. שַׁמְעֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָאָמַר לְאוּשְׁכָּפָא: עָבֵיד לִי מְסָאנֵי לְשַׁב שְׁנֵי, אַחֵיךְ. חֲזָא הָהוּא קַסָּמָא דַּהֲוָה קָסֵים, אַחֵיךְ. כִּי מְטָא לְהָתָם, לָא עַיְּילוּהּ לְגַבֵּיהּ דִּשְׁלֹמֹה עַד תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי. יוֹמָא קַמָּא אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַמַּאי לָא קָא בָעֵי לִי מַלְכָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַנְסֵיהּ מִישְׁתְּיָא. שְׁקַל לְבֵינְתָּא אוֹתֵיב אַחֲבִרְתַּהּ. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִשְׁלֹמֹה. אָמַר לְהוּ, הָכִי אָמַר לְכוּ: הֲדוּר אַשְׁקְיוּהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְאַמַּאי לָא קָא בָּעֵי לִי מַלְכָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַנְסֵיהּ מֵיכְלָא. שְׁקַל לְבֵינְתָּא מֵחֲבִרְתַּהּ, אוֹתְבַהּ אַאַרְעָא. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִשְׁלֹמֹה. אֲמַר לְהוּ, הָכִי אָמַר לְכוּ: נְגִידוּ מִינֵּיהּ מֵיכְלֵיהּ. לְסוֹף תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי עֲיַיל לְקַמֵּיהּ. שְׁקַל קַנְיָא, וּמְשַׁח אַרְבְּעָה גַּרְמִידֵי, וּשְׁדָא קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִכְּדִי כִּי מָיֵית הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, לֵית לֵיהּ בְּהָדֵין עָלְמָא אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעָה גַּרְמִידֵי; הַשְׁתָּא כְּבַשְׁתֵּיהּ לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, וְלָא שְׂבַעְתְּ עַד דִּכְבַשְׁתְּ נָמֵי לְדִידִי?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא קָא בָעֵינָא מִינָּךְ מִידֵּי; בָּעֵינָא דְּאֶיבְנְיֵיהּ לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְקָא מִיבְּעֵי לִי שָׁמִירָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי לָא מְסִיר לִי, לְשָׂרָא דְיַמָּא מָסֵיר לֵיהּ; וְלָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ אֶלָּא לְתַרְנְגוֹלָא בָּרָא, דִּמְהֵימַן לֵיהּ אַשְּׁבוּעֲתֵיהּ. וּמַאי עָבֵד בֵּיהּ? מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְטוּרֵי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ יִשּׁוּב, וּמַנַּח לֵהּ אַשִּׁינָּא דְטוּרָא, וּפָקַע טוּרָא; וּמְנַקֵּיט מַיְיתִי בִּיזְרָנֵי מֵאִילָנֵי, וְשָׁדֵי הָתָם, וְהָוֵי יִשּׁוּב. וְהַיְינוּ דִּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: ״נַגָּר טוּרָא״. בְּדַקוּ קִינָּא דְּתַרְנְגוֹלָא בָּרָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ בְּנֵי, וְחַפְּיוּהּ לְקִינֵּיהּ זוּגִּיתָא חִיוָּרְתִּי. כִּי אֲתָא, בָּעֵי לְמֵיעַל וְלָא מָצֵי. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי שָׁמִירָא, וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ עִלָּוֵיהּ. רְמָא בֵּיהּ קָלָא, שַׁדְיֵיהּ, שַׁקְלֵיהּ. אֲזַל חֲנַק נַפְשֵׁיהּ אַשְּׁבוּעֲתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּנָיָהוּ: מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְהָהוּא סַמְיָא דַּהֲוָה קָא טָעֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא, אַסֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְאוֹרְחֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַכְרְזִי עֲלֵיהּ בִּרְקִיעָא דְּצַדִּיק גָּמוּר הוּא, וּמַאן דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, זָכֵי לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי. וּמַאי טַעְמָא כִּי חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְהָהוּא רַוְיָא דְּקָטָעֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא, אַסֵּיקְתֵּיהּ לְאוֹרְחֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַכְרְזִי עֲלֵיהּ בִּרְקִיעָא דְּרָשָׁע גָּמוּר הוּא, וְעָבְדִי לֵיהּ נִיחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵיכְלֵיהּ לְעָלְמָא. מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְהָהוּא חֶדְוְותָא, בְּכֵית? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵי מֵימָת גַּבְרָא בְּגוֹ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, וּבָעֲיָא מִינְטָר לְיָבָם קָטָן תְּלֵיסְרֵי שְׁנִין. מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי שְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְאוּשְׁכָּפָא: ״עֲבֵיד לִי מְסָאנֵי לְשַׁב שְׁנִין״, אַחֵיכְתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא, שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי לֵית לֵיהּ, מְסָאנֵי לְשַׁב שְׁנִין בָּעֵי?! מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי חֲזֵיתֵיהּ לְהָהוּא קַסָּמָא דַּהֲוָה קָסֵים, אַחֵיכְתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּהֲוָה יְתֵיב אַבֵּי גַזָּא דְּמַלְכָּא, לִקְסוֹם מַאי דְּאִיכָּא תּוּתֵיהּ! תַּרְחֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ עַד דְּבַנְיֵיהּ לְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָאֵי לְחוֹדֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּתִיב: ״כְּתוֹעֲפוֹת רְאֵם לוֹ״; וְאָמְרִינַן: ״כְּתוֹעֲפוֹת״ – אֵלּוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, ״רְאֵם״ – אֵלּוּ הַשֵּׁדִים. מַאי רְבוּתַיְיכוּ מִינַּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל שׁוּשִׁילְתָּא מִינַּאי, וְהַב לִי עִיזְקְתָךְ, וְאַחְוִי לָךְ רְבוּתַאי. שַׁקְלֵיהּ לְשׁוּשִׁילְתָּא מִינֵּיהּ, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ עִיזְקְתֵיהּ. בַּלְעֵיהּ, אוֹתְבֵיהּ לְחַד גַּפֵּיהּ בִּרְקִיעָא, וּלְחַד גַּפֵּיהּ בְּאַרְעָא, פַּתְקֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה פַּרְסֵי. עַל הַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא אֲמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם בְּכׇל עֲמָלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲמֹל תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״. ״וְזֶה הָיָה חֶלְקִי מִכׇּל עֲמָלִי״ – מַאי ״וְזֶה״? רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל; חַד אָמַר: מַקְלוֹ; וְחַד אָמַר: גּוּנְדּוֹ. הָיָה מְחַזֵּר עַל הַפְּתָחִים, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּמְטָא, אָמַר: ״אֲנִי קֹהֶלֶת הָיִיתִי מֶלֶךְ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּירוּשָׁלִָים״. כִּי מְטָא גַּבֵּי סַנְהֶדְרִין, אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן: מִכְּדִי שׁוֹטֶה – בַּחֲדָא מִילְּתָא לָא סְרִיךְ, מַאי הַאי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִבְנָיָהוּ: קָא בָעֵי לָךְ מַלְכָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ לְמַלְכְּווֹתָא: קָאָתֵי מַלְכָּא לְגַבַּיְיכוּ? שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: אִין, קָאָתֵי. שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: בִּידְקוּ בְּכַרְעֵיהּ. שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: בְּמוּקֵי קָאָתֵי; וְקָא תָבַע לְהוּ בְּנִידּוּתַיְיהוּ; וְקָא תָבַע לַהּ נָמֵי לְבַת שֶׁבַע אִימֵּיהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לִשְׁלֹמֹה, וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ עִזְקְתָא, וְשׁוּשִׁילְתָּא דַּחֲקִוק עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם. כִּי עָיֵיל, חַזְיֵיהּ, פְּרַח. וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, הֲוָה לֵיהּ בִּיעֲתוּתָא מִינֵּיהּ. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה שִׁשִּׁים גִּבּוֹרִים סָבִיב לָהּ מִגִּבּוֹרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כּוּלָּם אֲחוּזֵי חֶרֶב מְלוּמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה, אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵיכוֹ מִפַּחַד בַּלֵּילוֹת״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט, וְחַד אָמַר: מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט וּמֶלֶךְ.
§ After mentioning the spirit named kordeyakos on the previous daf the Gemara relates other matters connected to spirits and demons. It is written: “I got myself sharim and sharot, and human pleasures, shidda and shiddot” (Ecclesiastes 2:8). The Gemara explains: “Sharim and sharot”: These are types of musical instruments. “And human pleasures”: These are pools and bathhouses. “Shidda and shiddot”: Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted these words in the following manner: Male demons [shidda] and female demons [shiddetin]. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said that these words are referring to carriages [shiddeta]. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There were three hundred types of demons in a place named Shiḥin, but I do not know what the form or nature of a demon itself is. The Master said: Here they interpreted it: Male demons and female demons. The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Solomon, the author of Ecclesiastes, to have male demons and female demons? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to the building of the Temple: “For the house, when it was being built, was built of stone made ready at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was being built” (I Kings 6:7). Solomon said to the sages: How shall I make it so that the stone will be precisely cut without using iron? They said to him: There is a creature called a shamir that can cut the stones, which Moses brought and used to cut the stones of the ephod. Solomon said to them: Where is it found? They said to him: Bring a male demon and a female demon and torment them together. It is possible that they know where, and due to the suffering they will reveal the place to you. Solomon brought a male demon and a female demon and tormented them together, and they said: We do not know where to find the shamir. Perhaps Ashmedai, king of the demons, knows. Solomon said to them: Where is Ashmedai? They said to him: He is on such-and-such a mountain. He has dug a pit for himself there, and filled it with water, and covered it with a rock, and sealed it with his seal. And every day he ascends to Heaven and studies in the heavenly study hall and he descends to the earth and studies in the earthly study hall. And he comes and checks his seal to ensure that nobody has entered his pit, and then he uncovers it and drinks from the water in the pit. And then he covers it and seals it again and goes. Solomon sent for Benayahu, son of Jehoiada, a member of the royal entourage, and gave him a chain onto which a sacred name of God was carved, and a ring onto which a sacred name of God was carved, and fleeces of wool and wineskins of wine. What did Benayahu do? He went and dug a pit lower down the mountain, below the pit dug by Ashmedai, drained the water, and plugged it with the fleeces of wool so that Ashmedai’s pit was emptied. And he dug a pit higher up the mountain, above Ashmedai’s pit. And he poured the wine into it so that the wine filled Ashmedai’s pit, and he plugged the lower and upper pits that he dug. He climbed up and sat in a tree. When Ashmedai came he checked his seal, opened the pit, and found it to be filled with wine. He said that it is written: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is riotous; and whosoever wallows in it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1), and it is written: “Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away the heart” (Hosea 4:11). He concluded: I will not drink this wine. Eventually, when he became thirsty, he was unable to resist the wine and he drank, became intoxicated, and fell asleep. Benayahu descended from the tree, came, and threw the chain around Ashmedai, and enclosed him within it. When Ashmedai awoke he struggled to remove the chain. Benayahu said to him: The name of your Master is upon you, the name of your Master is upon you, do not tear the chain. God’s name is written on this chain, and it is forbidden to destroy it. When Benayahu took Ashmedai and came to Jerusalem he reached a palm tree and Ashmedai rubbed against it and knocked it down. He reached a house and knocked it down. He reached a small shack [kuva] belonging to a certain widow. This widow emerged, and she begged him not to knock down the house. He bent his body away from her, to the other side, and broke one of his bones. He said: This is as it is written: “Soft speech can break a bone” (Proverbs 25:15). Ashmedai saw a blind man who was lost on the road and he brought him to the correct road. He saw a drunk who was lost on the road and he brought him to the correct road. He saw the joy of a wedding celebration in which they were celebrating, and he cried. He heard a certain man say to a shoemaker [ushkafa]: Make me shoes that will last for seven years, and he laughed. He saw a certain sorcerer performing magic, and he laughed. When Ashmedai arrived there, in Jerusalem, they did not bring him before Solomon until three days had passed. On the first day he said to them: Why doesn’t the king want me to come to him? They said to him: He drank too much and was overcome by drink. Ashmedai took a brick and placed it on top of another brick. The servants came and told Solomon what he had done. Solomon interpreted the action and said to them: This is what he said to you through this allusion: Return and give the king more to drink. The following day Ashmedai said to them: And why doesn’t the king want me to come to him? They said to him: He ate too much and was overcome by food. Ashmedai took the brick off the other brick and placed it on the ground. The servants came and told Solomon what Ashmedai had done. He interpreted Ashmedai’s actions and said to them: This is what he said to you through this allusion: Take his food away from him. At the end of three days Ashmedai came before Solomon. Ashmedai took a reed and measured four cubits [garmidei], and threw it before him. He said to Solomon: See, when that man, Solomon, dies, he will have nothing in this world except the four cubits of his grave. Now you have conquered the entire world and yet you are not satisfied until you also conquer me? Solomon said to him: I need nothing from you. I want to build the Temple and I need the shamir for this. Ashmedai said to him: The shamir was not given to me, but it was given to the angelic minister of the sea. And he gives it only to the wild rooster, also known as the dukhifat or the hoopoe, whom he trusts by the force of his oath to return it. And what does the wild rooster do with it? He brings it to mountains that are not fit for habitation, and he places the shamir on the craggy rock and the mountain splits. And he takes and brings seeds of trees, throws them there, and it becomes fit for habitation. And this is why we interpret the word dukhifat as a cutter of mountains [naggar tura], i.e., the Aramaic translation of the word dukhifat in the Bible is naggar tura, cutter of mountains. They investigated and found the nest of a wild rooster in which there were chicks, and he covered its nest with translucent glass. When the rooster came it wanted to enter the nest but was unable to do so. It went and brought the shamir and placed it on top to crack the glass. Solomon’s servant threw a clump of dirt at the rooster and the rooster knocked over the shamir. The man took it and the wild rooster went and strangled itself over the fact that it had not kept its oath, by not returning the shamir. Later, Benayahu said to Ashmedai: What is the reason that when you saw that blind man who was lost on the road you brought him to the correct road? Ashmedai said to him: They proclaim about him in heaven that he is a completely righteous man, and anyone who does good for his soul shall merit to enter the World-to-Come. Then Benayahu asked: And what is the reason that when you saw the drunk man who was lost on the road you brought him to the correct road? Ashmedai said to him: They proclaim about him in heaven that he is a completely wicked man. And I did good for his soul so that he will consume his reward in this world and not have any reward in the World-to-Come. Benayahu continued and asked him: What is the reason that when you saw that joy of the wedding you cried? Ashmedai said to him: I knew that this man will die within thirty days. And his wife is required to wait for the yavam, the husband’s brother, who is a minor, to reach the age of thirteen years, the age of majority, so that he can release her through ḥalitza, the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds. In addition, he asked: What is the reason that when you heard that man say to a shoemaker: Make me shoes that will last for seven years, you laughed? Ashmedai said to him: That man does not have seven days to live; does he need shoes that will last for seven years? Benayahu then asked: What is the reason that when you saw that sorcerer performing magic you laughed? Ashmedai said to him: Because he was sitting on the king’s treasury [bei gaza]. Let him use his magic to know what there is buried underneath him. Solomon kept Ashmedai with him until he completed building the Temple. One day he stood with Ashmedai alone. He said to Ashmedai: It is written: “For him like the lofty horns of the wild ox” (Numbers 24:8), and the Sages say in explanation of the verse: “Like the lofty horns”; these are the ministering angels. “The wild ox”; these are the demons. In what way are you greater than us? Why does the verse praise your abilities and powers over those of human beings? Ashmedai said to him: Take the chain engraved with God’s name off me and give me your ring with God’s name engraved on it, and I will show you my strength. Solomon took the chain off him and he gave him his ring. Ashmedai swallowed the ring and grew until he placed one wing in the heaven and one wing on the earth. He threw Solomon a distance of four hundred parasangs. With regard to that moment Solomon said: “What profit is there for a person through all of his toil under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3). With Solomon deposed from the throne, Ashmedai took his place. With regard to the verse: “And this was my portion from all of my toil” (Ecclesiastes 2:10), the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: “And this”? This expression is always an allusion to an item that is actually in his hand or can be shown. Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the meaning of this phrase. One said: This is referring to Solomon’s staff that remained in his hand. And one said: This is referring to his cloak. Solomon circulated from door to door collecting charity, and wherever he arrived he would say: “I, Ecclesiastes, was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). When he finally arrived at the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem the sages said: Now, an imbecile does not fixate on one matter all of the time, so what is this matter? Is this man perhaps telling the truth that he is Solomon? The sages said to Benayahu: Does the king require you to be with him? Benayahu said to them: No. They sent to the queens and asked: Does the king come to be with you? The queens sent a response to them: Yes, he comes. They sent a request to the queens: Check his feet to see if they are human feet. The queens sent a response to the sages: He always comes in socks [bemokei], and it is not possible to see his feet. The queens continued discussing the king’s behavior: And he demands of them, i.e., the queens, to engage in sexual intercourse when they are menstruating. And he also demands that Bathsheba his mother engage in sexual intercourse with him. Once the Sanhedrin heard this they understood that this was an imposter and not actually Solomon. They brought Solomon, gave him a ring and the chain on which the name of God was carved. When Solomon entered, Ashmedai saw him and fled. The Gemara adds: And even so, although Ashmedai fled, Solomon was fearful of him, and this is as it is written: “Behold the bed of Solomon surrounded by sixty strong men from the warriors of Israel. All of them holding swords and trained in war, each man with his sword on his thigh from fear in the nights” (Song of Songs 3:7–8). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to this story of Solomon. One said: He was a king and afterward he became a commoner, and never returned to his position as king. And one said: He was a king, and became a commoner, and a king, as ultimately he returned to his throne and defeated Ashmedai.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקִּיז דָּם וְשִׁימֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ – הוֹוִיין לוֹ בָּנִים וִיתְּקִין. הִקִּיזוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְשִׁימְּשׁוּ – הוֹוִיין לָהֶן בָּנִים בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא טָעֵים מִידֵּי, אֲבָל טָעֵים מִידֵּי – לֵית לַן בַּהּ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בָּא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁימֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ – הוֹוִיין לוֹ בָּנִים וִיתְּקִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַכִּסֵּא, אַל יְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה שִׁיעוּר חֲצִי מִיל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשֵּׁד בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא מְלַוֶּה עִמּוֹ; וְאִם שִׁימֵּשׁ – הוֹוִיין לוֹ בָּנִים נִכְפִּים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ מְעוּמָּד – אוֹחַזְתּוֹ עֲוִית; מְיוּשָּׁב – אוֹחַזְתּוֹ דָּלָרְיָא; הִיא מִלְּמַעְלָה וְהוּא מִלְּמַטָּה – אוֹחַזְתּוֹ דָּלָרְיָא. מַאי דָּלָרְיָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: סַם דָּלָרְיָא – דַּרְדָּרָא. מַאי דַּרְדָּרָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹרִיקָא דְחוֹחֵי. רַב פָּפָּא אָלֵיס וּבָלַע לֵיהּ. רַב פַּפֵּי אָלֵיס וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, לֵיתֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה קְפִיזֵי קוּרְטְמֵי דְחוֹחֵי, וְנֵידוּקִינְהוּ, וְנִישְׁלְקִינְהוּ בְּחַמְרָא וְנִישְׁתֵּי. אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֵן הֵן הֶחְזִירוּנִי לְנַעֲרוּתִי. שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַכְחִישִׁים כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פַּחַד, דֶּרֶךְ וְעָוֹן. פַּחַד – דִּכְתִיב: ״לִבִּי סְחַרְחַר עֲזָבַנִי כֹחִי״. דֶּרֶךְ – דִּכְתִיב: ״עִנָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ כֹּחִי״. עָוֹן – דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּשַׁל בַּעֲוֹנִי כֹחִי״.
The Sages taught: One who let blood and afterward engaged in sexual intercourse has weak children conceived from those acts of intercourse. If both of them, husband and wife, let blood and engaged in sexual intercourse they will have children afflicted with a disease known as ra’atan. Rav Pappa said: We said this only if he did not taste anything after letting blood. But if he tasted something then we have no problem with it. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: One who came back from traveling on the road and engaged in sexual intercourse immediately has weak children conceived from those acts of intercourse. The Sages taught: With regard to one who comes in from the bathroom, he should not engage in sexual intercourse until he waits the measure of time it takes to walk half a mil because the demon of the bathroom accompanies him. And if he engaged in sexual intercourse without waiting this measure of time, he has children who are epileptic. The Sages taught: One who engages in sexual intercourse while standing will be afflicted by spasms. One who engages in sexual intercourse while sitting will be afflicted with dalarya.If she, the woman, is above and he, the husband, is below during sexual intercourse, then he will be afflicted with dalarya. The Gemara asks: What is dalarya? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The remedy for dalarya is dardara. The Gemara asks: What is dardara? Abaye said: Saffron of thorns. Rav Pappa would chew [aleis] and swallow this remedy. Rav Pappi would chew and spit it out. Abaye says: As a remedy for one who is not an expert, i.e., does not have strength, in the way of the world, i.e., in sexual intercourse, let him bring three vessels [kefizei], each containing three-quarters of a log of safflower thorns. And let him grind them, and boil them in wine, and drink the mixture. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These are the remedies that return me to my youth with regard to sexual intercourse. § Three things diminish a person’s strength, and they are: Fear, traveling on the road, and sin. The Gemara explains: Fear, as it is written: “My heart flutters, my strength fails me” (Psalms 38:11). Traveling on the road, as it is written: “He has weakened my strength on the road” (Psalms 102:24). Sin, as it is written: “My strength fails because of my sin” (Psalms 31:11).
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַכְחִישִׁים כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פַּחַד, דֶּרֶךְ וְעָוֹן. פַּחַד – דִּכְתִיב: ״לִבִּי סְחַרְחַר עֲזָבַנִי כֹחִי״. דֶּרֶךְ – דִּכְתִיב: ״עִנָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ כֹּחִי״. עָוֹן – דִּכְתִיב: ״כָּשַׁל בַּעֲוֹנִי כֹחִי״. שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַתִּיזִין גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אָכַל מְעוּמָּד, וְשָׁתָה מְעוּמָּד, וְשִׁימֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ מְעוּמָּד. חֲמִשָּׁה קְרוֹבִין לְמִיתָה יוֹתֵר מִן הַחַיִּים, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אָכַל וְעָמַד, שָׁתָה וְעָמַד, הִקִּיז דָּם וְעָמַד, יָשֵׁן וְעָמַד, שִׁימֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ וְעָמַד. שִׁשָּׁה, הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן – מִיָּד מֵת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַבָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְנִתְיַיגַּע, הִקִּיז דָּם, וְנִכְנַס לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְשָׁתָה וְנִשְׁתַּכֵּר, וְיָשַׁן עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְשִׁימֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְהוּא שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן כְּסִידְרָן. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּסִידְרָן – מֵת, שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִידְרָן – חָלֵישׁ. אִינִי?! וְהָא מְעוּרַת עֲבַדָה לֵיהּ לְעַבְדַּהּ תְּלָת מִינַּיְיהוּ, וּמִית! הָהוּא כָּחוּשׁ הֲוָה. שְׁמוֹנָה – רוּבָּן קָשֶׁה וּמִיעוּטָן יָפֶה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: דֶּרֶךְ, וְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, עוֹשֶׁר, וּמְלָאכָה, יַיִן, וְשֵׁינָה, חַמִּין, וְהַקָּזַת דָּם. שְׁמוֹנָה מְמַעֲטִים אֶת הַזֶּרַע, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַמֶּלַח, וְהָרָעָב, וְהַנֶּתֶק, בְּכִיָּיה, וְשֵׁינָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, וְגֻדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת, וּכְשׁוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, וְהַקָּזַת דָּם לְמַטָּה – כִּפְלַיִם. תָּנָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּשָׁה לְמַטָּה כִּפְלַיִם, כָּךְ יָפָה לְמַעְלָה – כִּפְלַיִם. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִן הַבֵּיצִים, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִן הַבֵּיצִים.
§ Three things diminish a person’s strength, and they are: Fear, traveling on the road, and sin. The Gemara explains: Fear, as it is written: “My heart flutters, my strength fails me” (Psalms 38:11). Traveling on the road, as it is written: “He has weakened my strength on the road” (Psalms 102:24). Sin, as it is written: “My strength fails because of my sin” (Psalms 31:11). Three things break a person’s body, and they are: If he ate while standing, if he drank while standing, and if he engaged in sexual intercourse while standing. There are five actions that bring one closer to death than to life, and they are: If he ate and stood up immediately, if he drank and stood up immediately, if he let blood and stood up immediately, if he slept and stood up immediately, and if he engaged in sexual intercourse and stood up immediately. With regard to one who performs the following acts, if he performs the six of them consecutively he dies immediately, and they are: If one came back from a journey on the road and was exhausted, let blood, and entered the bathhouse, and drank and became intoxicated, and slept on the ground, and engaged in sexual intercourse, then he will die. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: But he will die for certain only in the case where he performs them in this order. Abaye said: If he performs these actions in this order he will die. But if he performs them out of order he will become weak. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t a woman named Me’oret make her slave perform three of these actions and he died as a result? The Gemara answers: That slave was weak, which is why he died. But an ordinary individual would die only upon performing all of these acts in the previously mentioned order. Eight actions are difficult for the body and the soul to handle in large amounts and are beneficial in small amounts, and they are: Traveling on the road, engaging in the way of the world, i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse, having wealth, work, drinking wine, sleep, hot water, and bloodletting. Eight actions or illnesses decrease the semen, and they are: Salt, hunger, a skin disease called netek, crying, sleeping on the ground, the melilot plant, and dodder eaten not in its time, i.e., before it is ripe. And bloodletting performed below, on the lower portion of the body, causes twice as much harm as the other actions mentioned. The Sage taught: Just as bloodletting below causes twice as much harm, so too, bloodletting above, on the upper portion of the body, is twice as effective. Rav Pappa said: When the Gemara mentioned letting blood from below it meant below the testicles, and when it mentioned letting blood from above it meant above the testicles.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת״? רוֹמִי. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לָהֶם לֹא כְּתָב, וְלֹא לָשׁוֹן. אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה תִּיקְּנוּ מַלְכוּת בְּגִיטִּין – מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת. וּמִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת – תֵּצֵא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר?! אִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין – הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת יָוָן: וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת – מִשּׁוּם דִּמְלִיכָא; אֲבָל מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּמַלְכוּת יָוָן – מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה; וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּמַלְכוּת יָוָן – מִשּׁוּם דְּמַלְכְוָתָא הָווּ; אֲבָל בִּנְיַן הַבַּיִת – מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה; וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּנְיַן הַבַּיִת – דְּאָמְרִי: קָמַדְכְּרִי שְׁבָחַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל חוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, דְּצַעֲרָא הוּא – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.
GEMARA: It was stated in the mishna that if one wrote the date on a bill of divorce according to a kingdom that is not legitimate, it is invalid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the description: A kingdom that is not legitimate? The Gemara answers: This is referring to the Roman Empire, and he wrote the bill of divorce in a different country, such as Babylonia, where the Romans were not in power. And why is it called: A kingdom that is not legitimate? Because they have neither their own script, nor their own language, but rather, they took them from other nations. Ulla said: For what reason did the Sages institute that the date should be written according to the years of the local kingdom, in bills of divorce? Due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as the government is particular that important documents issued in its domain be written with the date of that government. The Gemara asks: But due to an ordinance instituted by the Sages solely for the sake of maintaining peaceful relations with the kingdom, would they be so stringent that the woman would be forced to leave her husband, and they would declare the status of the offspring is a mamzer? The Gemara answers: Yes. Rabbi Meir conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that anyone deviating from the formula coined by the Sages for bills of divorce, even if it is only a minor deviation, the bill of divorce is invalid, and if the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then the offspring from that marriage is a mamzer. It was stated in the mishna: If he wrote the date on a bill of divorce in the name of the Greek Empire, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this halakha and the other halakhot as well. As, if the mishna had taught us this halakha only with regard to a kingdom that is not legitimate, one could say that the bill of divorce is invalid because this kingdom is currently ruling, and the local government where he is writing the bill of divorce therefore objects to his writing the date of an another kingdom. But with regard to the kingdom of Medea, and the Greek Empire, it is not necessary to invalidate the bill of divorce, since what was, was, and since these kingdoms are no longer in power, the local government is not particular if they are mentioned in a document. And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the kingdom of Medea and the Greek Empire, one could understand the concern, because they were kingdoms, and the current government objects to another kingdom being mentioned in a document. But if he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, then one could say what was, was, and the local government is not particular if this is mentioned in a document. Consequently, it was necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha as well. And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the building of the Temple, then one could say that the reason why this is problematic is because the governments will say: The Jews mention their own praise, instead of honoring the ruling government. But with regard to the destruction of the Temple, which is a cause of anguish for us, say that no, the government is not particular about this. Therefore it is necessary to mention all of these halakhot.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לֹא חָרְבָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד שֶׁעָבְדוּ בָּהּ שִׁבְעָה בָּתֵּי דִינִים עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט, וּבַעְשָׁא בֶּן אֲחִיָּה, וְאַחְאָב בֶּן עָמְרִי, וְיֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי, וּפֶקַח בֶּן רְמַלְיָהוּ, וּמְנַחֵם בֶּן גָּדִי, וְהוֹשֵׁעַ בֶּן אֵלָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוּמְלְלָה יוֹלֶדֶת הַשִּׁבְעָה, נָפְחָה נַפְשָׁהּ, בָּאָה שִׁמְשָׁהּ בְּעוֹד יוֹמָם, בּוֹשָׁה וְחָפֵרָה״.
§ The Gemara cites another derivation from this verse. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The first destruction of Eretz Yisrael did not occur until seven dynasties and their courts committed idol worship in it, and they are these: Jeroboam, son of Nevat; and Baasa, son of Ahijah; and Ahab, son of Omri; and Jehu, son of Nimshi; and Pekah, son of Remaliah; and Menahem, son of Gadi; and Hoshea, son of Elah, as it is stated: “She who has given birth to seven languishes; her spirit droops; her sun is gone down while it was yet day, she is ashamed and confounded” (Jeremiah 15:9).
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָּהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַּבְשִׁילוֹ – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו״.
MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַדֵּעוֹת בְּמַאֲכָל, כָּךְ דֵּעוֹת בְּנָשִׁים. יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ כּוֹסוֹ – וְזוֹרְקוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹתֵהוּ; וְזוֹ הִיא מִדַּת פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה, שֶׁהָיָה נוֹעֵל בִּפְנֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ כּוֹסוֹ – וְזוֹרְקוֹ, וְשׁוֹתֵהוּ; וְזוֹ הִיא מִדַּת כׇּל אָדָם, שֶׁמְּדַבֶּרֶת עִם אַחֶיהָ וּקְרוֹבֶיהָ – וּמַנִּיחָהּ. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ תַּמְחוּי – מוֹצְצוֹ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ; זוֹ הִיא מִדַּת אָדָם רַע, שֶׁרוֹאֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוָה בַּשּׁוּק, וּפְרוּמָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדֶיהָ, וְרוֹחֶצֶת עִם בְּנֵי אָדָם. ״עִם בְּנֵי אָדָם״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם רוֹחֲצִין. זוֹ – מִצְוָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְגָרְשָׁהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת וְגוֹ׳ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ״. ״וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״ – הַכָּתוּב קְרָאוֹ ״אַחֵר״, לוֹמַר: שֶׁאֵין זֶה בֶּן זוּגוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן – זֶה הוֹצִיא רְשָׁעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, וְזֶה הִכְנִיס רְשָׁעָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. זָכָה שֵׁנִי – שִׁלְּחָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן״. וְאִם לָאו – קוֹבַרְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן״ – כְּדַאי הוּא בְּמִיתָה; שֶׁזֶּה הוֹצִיא רְשָׁעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, וְזֶה הִכְנִיס רְשָׁעָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
§ It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 5:9) that Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are different attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are different attitudes with regard to women. With regard to food, you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the wine with the fly and does not drink it. And this is comparable to the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda with regard to his wife, as he would lock the door before his wife and leave so that she would not see any other man. And you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the fly and drinks the wine. And this is comparable to the demeanor of any common man, whose wife speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her do so. And you have a man who, when a fly falls into his serving bowl, he sucks the fly and eats the food. This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out into the street with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace immodestly, and with her garment open from both sides, and bathing with men, and ignores it. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a wife who bathes with men? Even a man of the lowest moral character would not allow his wife to act in this manner. Rather, the baraita means that she bathes in a place where men often bathe. The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house. If the second man merits, he will send her out, as it is stated in the following verse: “And the latter husband hates her…and he sends her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:3). And if not, she will bury him, as it is stated in the same verse: “Or if the latter husband dies.” It is appropriate for him to receive the punishment of death, as that first man evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second husband introduced a wicked woman into his house.
״כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח״ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם שְׂנֵאתָהּ – שַׁלַּח. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: שָׂנאוּי הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא בְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן, הָא בְּזוּג שֵׁנִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל הַמְגָרֵשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה – אֲפִילּוּ מִזְבֵּחַ מוֹרִיד עָלָיו דְּמָעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזֹאת שֵׁנִית תַּעֲשׂוּ, כַּסּוֹת דִּמְעָה אֶת מִזְבַּח ה׳, בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה מֵאֵין עוֹד פְּנוֹת אֶל הַמִּנְחָה, וְלָקַחַת רָצוֹן מִיֶּדְכֶם. וַאֲמַרְתֶּם: עַל מָה? עַל כִּי ה׳ הֵעִיד בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין אֵשֶׁת נְעוּרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָּגַדְתָּה בָּהּ, וְהִיא חֲבֶרְתְּךָ וְאֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶךָ״.
§ The prophet Malachi states in rebuke of those who divorce their wives: “For I hate sending away, says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse means that if you hate your wife, send her away. Do not continue living with a woman whom you hate. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse means that one who sends his wife away is hated by God. And the Gemara explains that they do not disagree. This statement is with regard to a first marriage, i.e., one should tolerate his first wife and not divorce her, and that statement is with regard to a second marriage, in which case the husband should divorce his wife if he hates her. As Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears over him, as it is stated: “And this further you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He does not regard the offering anymore, nor does He receive it with goodwill from your hand. Yet you say: What for? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:13–14). Clearly one should not divorce the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife, as one who does so is hated by God for divorcing the woman to whom he was bound in companionship and covenant.