Kiddushin Greatest Hits

When he was in a good mood, Abaye once said: Behold I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound on the Torah in the markets of Tiberias. I too am ready to answer any question put to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye: After all, with regard to those verses: “Out of the money that he was bought for” and “according to his years,” one could expound them leniently, and assess the cost of redemption at the lower amount. And one could, in equal measure, expound them stringently, i.e., one could say that if a slave was worth more when he was purchased, he pays according to “the money that he was bought for,” and if he increased in value he must pay “according to his years,” i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently. Abaye answered: It cannot enter your mind to expound the verses stringently, as indicated from the fact that the Merciful One is lenient with regard to a slave and is concerned about his well-being. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. The baraita continues: This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own. That Sage asked Abaye: But one can say that this leniency in the case of a Hebrew slave applies only to the matter of eating and drinking, so as not to cause him suffering. But with regard to the matter of redemption, perhaps one should be stringent with him. The reason to be stringent is based on a statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., how great are the punishments not just for working the land, but also for treating lightly the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce. If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: “In this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “And if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand” (Leviticus 25:14), which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical halakhot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property. If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: “If your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: “And if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29). The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the first sentence, in which the tanna says: He does not sense, and what is different here, in the continuation, in which he says: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him merely because he has sinned twice? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it is permitted. Therefore, when he violates a prohibition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite? Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan: When you were studying in the house of Mar Shmuel did you play with tokens [iskumadri]? Didn’t you take your studies seriously? What is the reason that you do not say a proof to him from that which we learned: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because piercing renders him blemished. Rav Naḥman explains the proof: And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, it is not even relevant to suggest that a slave of priestly lineage could be pierced, as the fact that he cannot be pierced could be derived from another point, as I require the slave to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5), and that declaration cannot be issued by a priest if his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. And nothing more can be answered to this proof. The reason given by the Rabbis proves that a Canaanite maidservant can be provided even to a priest. Similarly, a dilemma was raised before them: What is the halakha with regard to the permissibility for a priest who goes to war to engage in intercourse with a beautiful woman captured in that war? Does one say that the case of a beautiful woman is a novelty in that the Torah permits a man to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman? Consequently, it is no different in the case of a priest and no different in the case of an Israelite, as both are permitted to engage in intercourse with this woman. Or perhaps the case of priests is different, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them? Rav said: It is permitted, and Shmuel said: It is prohibited. The Gemara comments: With regard to the first act of sexual intercourse between the soldier priest and the gentile woman, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination, and the evil inclination of a priest is as strong as that of an Israelite. This passage serves to prevent intercourse performed in a prohibited manner, which is relevant to a priest as well. When they disagree it is with regard to the second act of sexual intercourse. Is a priest permitted to bring the captive into his house, convert her, and marry her? Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Their reasoning is as follows: Rav said it is permitted: Since she was permitted to him once, she remains permitted to him. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as ultimately she is a convert, and a convert is not fit to marry a priest. There are those who say a different version of this dispute. With regard to the second act of intercourse everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as she is a convert, and a priest may not marry a convert. When they disagree it is with regard to the first act of intercourse. Rav said it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as any situation that one can read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), one can also read and fulfill with regard to the earlier command of: “And see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11). Conversely, any situation that one cannot read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house,” i.e., if the soldier may not marry her, one does not read with regard to it: “And sees among the captives,” and one may not engage in sexual intercourse with her. The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: “And sees among the captives,” teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression “a woman” teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase “a beautiful woman” indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her. And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited. The expression: “And you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one’s desire. The term “for her” indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner. The phrase “and would take her” teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. “To you as a wife” teaches that he may not take two women, one for him and one for his father, or one for him and one for his son. The verse: “Then you shall bring her home into your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), teaches that he should not pressure her to engage in sexual intercourse during the war, but he should first take her into his home.

The Gemara asks: Now that you said that if a slave lifts his master, the master acquires him, consider the following ramification of this ruling: If that is so, let a Canaanite maidservant be acquired by means of sexual intercourse with the master, as it is possible to claim she lifts him during the act of intercourse. The Gemara answers: When we say that one acquires a slave through the labor the slave performs for him, that applies to a situation where this master benefits and that slave suffers. In this manner the master exercises his authority over the slave. Here, with regard to sexual intercourse, it is a case where this master benefits and this Canaanite maidservant likewise benefits. Since both sides derive benefit, it cannot be seen as an act of acquisition. The Gemara asks: If he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with her, what can be said? In that case the woman does not benefit from the intercourse. Rav Aḥai bar Adda of the place called Aḥa said: Who will tell us, i.e., it is not obvious, that there is no benefit for both of them, i.e., there is benefit only for the man, when they engage in intercourse in an atypical manner? And furthermore, it is written: “Lyings with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22). The plural form indicates that there are two ways of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman: In this manner the verse compares typical sexual intercourse to intercourse in an atypical manner.

MISHNA: With regard to all mitzvot of a son with regard to his father, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The mishna notes an additional difference between the obligations of men and women in the performance of mitzvot: With regard to all positive, time-bound mitzvot, i.e., those which must be performed at specific times, men are obligated to perform them and women are exempt. And with regard to all positive mitzvot that are not time bound, both men and women are obligated to perform them. And with regard to all prohibitions, whether they are time-bound or whether they are not time-bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them, except for the prohibitions of: Do not round the corners of your head, and: Do not destroy the corners of your beard, which are derived from the verse: “You shall not round the corners of your head and you shall not destroy the corners of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), and a prohibition that concerns only priests: Do not contract ritual impurity from a corpse (see Leviticus 21:1). These mitzvot apply only to men, not women, despite the fact that they are prohibitions. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: All mitzvot of a son with regard to his father? If we say that it is referring to all mitzvot that the son is obligated to perform with regard to his father, are women exempt from obligations of this kind? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a verse that deals with the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3)? I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva. From where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to all mitzvot of a son that are incumbent upon his father to perform for his son, men are obligated in them and women are exempt. The Gemara comments: According to this interpretation, we learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him if he is a firstborn son who must be redeemed by payment to a priest, and to teach him Torah, and to marry him to a woman, and to teach him a trade. And some say: A father is also obligated to teach his son to swim. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood. This baraita accords with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the mishna.

§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this requirement? As it is written: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19). And in a case where his father did not teach him he is obligated to teach himself, as it is written, i.e., the verse can be read with a different vocalization: And you shall study [ulmadtem]. From where do we derive that a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah? As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem]. This indicates that whoever is commanded to study Torah is commanded to teach, and whoever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach. Since a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, she is likewise not obligated to teach it. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach [velimadtem],” which can be read as: And you shall study [ulmadtem], which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters. The Sages taught: If one wishes to study Torah himself and his son also wants to study, he takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his son is diligent and sharp, and his study will endure, his son takes precedence over him. This is like that anecdote which is told about Rav Ya’akov, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, whose father sent him to Abaye to study Torah. When the son came home, his father saw that his studies were not sharp, as he was insufficiently bright. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to his son: I am preferable to you, and it is better that I go and study. Therefore, you sit and handle the affairs of the house so that I can go and study. Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon. Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger. The Sages taught: If one has to decide whether to study Torah or to marry a woman, which should he do first? He should study Torah and afterward marry a woman. And if it is impossible for him to be without a wife, he should marry a woman and then study Torah. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? The Gemara comments: And the amora’im do not disagree; this is for us and that is for them. In other words, one statement applies to the residents of Babylonia, whereas the other is referring to those living in Eretz Yisrael.

§ With regard to marriage, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda would praise Rav Hamnuna to Rav Huna by saying that he is a great man. Rav Huna said to him: When he comes to you, send him to me. When Rav Hamnuna came before him, Rav Huna saw that he did not cover his head with a cloth, as Torah scholars did. Rav Huna said to him: What is the reason that you do not cover your head with a cloth? Rav Hamnuna said to him: The reason is that I am not married, and it was not customary for unmarried men to cover their heads with a cloth. Rav Huna turned his face away from him in rebuke, and he said to him: See to it that you do not see my face until you marry. The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life. Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him. Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen, I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four. The Gemara notes that this is like a dispute between tanna’im, based on the verse: “Train a child in the way that he should go” (Proverbs 22:6). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagreed about the age in which the verse instructs the parent to educate his child: One said that the verse is referring to the ages from sixteen until twenty-two, and one said it is referring to the ages from eighteen until twenty-four. The dispute concerning the correct age for marriage and the dispute about educating a child are the same, as while a father still has a large measure of influence over his son, he must both teach him and find him a wife.

The Gemara continues its discussion of a father’s obligation to teach his son Torah. To what extent is a person obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One should emulate the education of, for example, Zevulun ben Dan, a contemporary of Shmuel, whose father’s father taught him Bible, Mishna, Talmud, halakhot, and aggadot. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a father taught his son Bible, he is not required to teach him Mishna. And Rava said in explanation of this baraita: Bible is the Torah, not the Prophets or Writings, i.e., he is not required to teach him anything else, including Mishna. The Gemara answers that Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: One should teach his son like Zevulun ben Dan was taught in certain aspects, but not like Zevulun ben Dan in other respects. One should teach his son like Zevulun ben Dan in that his father’s father taught him; but not like Zevulun ben Dan, as there he was taught Bible, Mishna, Talmud, halakhot, and aggadot, while here, in this baraita, one is required to teach his son Bible alone. The Gemara asks: But is one’s father’s father obligated to teach him Torah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita, that the verse: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), indicates: But not your sons’ sons? And how do I realize, i.e., understand, the meaning of the verse: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons” (Deuteronomy 4:9)? This serves to say to you that whoever teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes him credit as though he taught him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the end of all generations. The Gemara answers that the tanna of this baraita stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in another baraita: From the verse “And you shall teach them to your sons” I have derived only that you must teach your sons. From where do I derive that there is an obligation to teach your sons’ sons? The verse states: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons.” If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which implies only sons? This limitation teaches: Your sons, but not your daughters. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who teaches his son’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him credit as though he received it from Mount Sinai, as it is stated: “But make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons,” and juxtaposed to it is the phrase in the verse: “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10), as Horeb is Mount Sinai. The Gemara relates: Once Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba encountered Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and saw that he had placed an inexpensive covering on his head and brought his child to the synagogue to study. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: What is the reason for all this fuss, as you are in such a hurry that you do not have time to dress yourself properly? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Is it insignificant, that which is written: “But make them known to your sons,” and juxtaposed to it is the phrase in the verse that states: “The day when you stood before the Lord your God in Horeb”? The Gemara comments: From this moment onward, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would not taste meat [umtza], meaning he would not eat breakfast, before he had read to his child and added to the child’s studies from the day before. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would not taste meat before he had brought his child to the study hall.

§ Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall teach them diligently [veshinnantam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 6:7)? Do not read this as “veshinnantam,” with the root shin, nun, nun, which indicates a repetition. Rather, read it as veshillashtam, with the root shin, lamed, shin, related to the word three, shalosh. This means that one must study, review, and study again, thereby dividing one’s studies into three parts. In light of this statement, the Sages said that a person should always divide his years into three parts, as follows: A third for Bible, a third for Mishna, and a third for Talmud. The Gemara asks: How can a person divide his life this way? Who knows the length of his life, so that he can calculate how long a third will be? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for one’s days, i.e., one should divide each day of his life in this manner. Therefore, because they devoted so much time to the Bible, the first Sages were called: Those who count [soferim], because they would count all the letters in the Torah, as they would say that the letter vav in the word “belly [gaḥon]” (Leviticus 11:42) is the midpoint of the letters in a Torah scroll. The words: “Diligently inquired [darosh darash]” (Leviticus 10:16), are the midpoint of the words in a Torah scroll. And the verse that begins with: “Then he shall be shaven” (Leviticus 13:33), is the midpoint of the verses. Similarly, in the expression: “The boar out of the wood [miya’ar] ravages it” (Psalms 80:14), the ayin in the word wood [ya’ar] is the midpoint of Psalms, with regard to its number of letters. The verse: “But He, being full of compassion, forgives iniquity” (Psalms 78:38), is the midpoint of verses in the book of Psalms. Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: Does the vav of the word “belly [gaḥon]” belong to this side or to this side? Is it part of the first or second half of the Torah? The Sages said to him: Let us bring a Torah scroll and count the letters. Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say with regard to a different issue: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted the letters? Therefore we can do the same. Rav Yosef said to them: They were experts in the deficient and plene forms of words and therefore could count the letters precisely. We are not experts in this regard, and therefore we would be unable to resolve the question even if we were to count the letters. Similarly, Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: Does the midpoint of the verses in the Torah, which is “then he shall be shaven,” belong to this side or to this side? Abaye said to him: Even if we cannot count the letters, we can at least bring a Torah scroll to count the verses. Rav Yosef explained: We are not experts about verses either, as when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, they divide this following verse into three separate verses: “And the Lord said to Moses, behold I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever; And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord” (Exodus 19:9). Perhaps there are other verses that we do not know how to divide properly. The Sages taught: Five thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight verses are the verses in a Torah scroll. Psalms has eight more verses than that, and Chronicles has eight fewer verses than that.

§ The Sages taught: The verse states: “And you shall teach them diligently [veshinnantam]” (Deuteronomy 6:7). The root shin, nun, nun, of veshinnantam should be understood as meaning sharp, i.e., that matters of Torah should be sharp and clear in your mouth, so that if a person asks you something, do not stutter in uncertainty and say an uncertain response to him. Rather, answer him immediately, as it is stated: “Say to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kinswoman” (Proverbs 7:4), which indicates that one should be as knowledgeable in the Torah as in the identity of his sister. And it states: “Bind them upon your fingers, you shall write them upon the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:3). And it states: “As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of one’s youth” (Psalms 127:4). And it states: “Sharp arrows of the mighty” (Psalms 120:4). And it states: “Your arrows are sharp, the peoples fall under you” (Psalms 45:6). And it states: “Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; they shall not be put to shame when they speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalms 127:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa], and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14). The word “vahev” is interpreted as related to the word for love, ahava. Additionally, do not read this as “in Suphah [beSufa]”; rather, read it as “at its end [besofa],” i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other. The Sages taught: “And you shall place [vesamtem] these words of Mine in your hearts” (Deuteronomy 11:18). Read this as though it stated sam tam, a perfect elixir. The Torah is compared to an elixir of life. There is a parable that illustrates this: A person hit his son with a strong blow and placed a bandage on his wound. And he said to him: My son, as long as this bandage is on your wound and is healing you, eat what you enjoy and drink what you enjoy, and bathe in either hot water or cold water, and you do not need to be afraid, as it will heal your wound. But if you take it off, the wound will become gangrenous. So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you are engaged in Torah study you will not be given over into the hand of the evil inclination, as it is stated: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up?” (Genesis 4:7). One who engages in Torah study lifts himself above the evil inclination. And if you do not engage in Torah study, you are given over to its power, as it is stated: “Sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). Moreover, all of the evil inclination’s deliberations will be concerning you, as it is stated in the same verse: “And to you is its desire.” And if you wish you shall rule over it, as it is stated in the conclusion of the verse: “But you may rule over it” (Genesis 4:7). The Sages taught: So difficult is the evil inclination that even its Creator calls it evil, as it is stated: “For the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). Rav Yitzḥak says: A person’s evil inclination renews itself to him every day, as it is stated: “And that every inclination of the thoughts in his heart was only evil all day [kol hayyom]” (Genesis 6:5). “Kol hayyom” can also be understood as: Every day. And Rabbi Shimon ben Levi says: A person’s inclination overpowers him every day, and seeks to kill him, as it is stated: “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32). And if not for the fact that the Holy One, Blessed be He, assists each person in battling his evil inclination, he could not overcome it, as it is stated: “The Lord will not leave him in his hand” (Psalms 37:33). A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: My son, if this wretched one, the evil inclination, encounters you, pull it into the study hall, i.e., go and study Torah. If it is a stone it will melt, and if it is iron it will break, as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Is not My word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as a stone shatters a hammer, so too one can overcome his evil inclination, which is as strong as iron, through Torah study. With regard to the second part of the statement: If it is a stone it will melt, this is as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1), and it states: “The water wears the stones” (Job 14:19), indicating that water is stronger than stone.

§ The baraita (29a) teaches that a father is commanded to marry his son to a woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? As it is written: “Take wives and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men” (Jeremiah 29:6). The Gemara analyzes this verse: Granted with regard to his son, this is in his power, i.e., he can instruct him to marry a woman, as a man is the active agent in a marriage. But with regard to his daughter, is this in his power? She must wait for a man to marry her. The Gemara answers: This is what Jeremiah was saying to them in the aforementioned verse: Her father should give her something for her dowry, and he should dress and cover her with suitable clothing so that men will leap to marry her. § The baraita further states that a father is commanded to teach his son a trade. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Ḥizkiyya said: As the verse states: “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). If this verse is interpreted literally, and it is referring to an actual woman, then one can derive as follows: Just as a father is obligated to marry his son to a woman, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade, as indicated by the term: Life. And if the wife mentioned in this verse is allegorical, and it is the Torah, then one should explain the verse in the following manner: Just as he is obligated to teach him Torah, so too, he is obligated to teach him a trade. § The baraita adds: And some say that a father is also obligated to teach his son to swim in a river. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It is necessary for his life, i.e., this is potentially a lifesaving skill. § The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he taught him banditry. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of Rabbi Yehuda? Both state that a father must teach his son a trade. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where the father teaches him to engage in business. According to the first tanna this is sufficient, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must teach him an actual trade.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to all mitzvot of a father with regard to his son, both men and women are obligated to perform them. The Gemara inquires: What is the meaning of the expression: All mitzvot of a father with regard to his son? If we say that this is referring to all of the mitzvot that a father is required to perform for his son, are women obligated in these? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A father is obligated with regard to his son to circumcise him, and to redeem him? This indicates that his father, yes, he is obligated to do these, but his mother, no, she is not obligated to perform these mitzvot for her son. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: With regard to each mitzva for the father that is incumbent upon the son to perform for his father, both men and women are obligated in them. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3). I have derived only that a man is obligated in this mitzva; from where do I derive that a woman is also obligated? When it says in the same verse: “A man shall fear [tira’u] his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), employing the plural form of the verb, this indicates that there are two that are obligated here, both a man and a woman. If so, that both of them are obligated, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Man”? In the case of a man, it is in his power to perform this mitzva; whereas with regard to a woman, it is not always in her power to perform this mitzva, because she is under the authority of another person, i.e., her husband. As she is obligated to her husband to maintain her household, she is not always able to find time for her parents. Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav says: Consequently, if a woman is divorced, then both of them, a daughter and a son, are equal with regard to honoring and fearing their father and mother. The Sages taught that it is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9). In this manner, the verse equates the honor of one’s father and mother to the honor of the Omnipresent, as the term “honor” is used in both cases. Similarly, it is stated: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), and it is stated: “You shall fear the Lord your God and Him you shall serve” (Deuteronomy 6:13). The verse equates the fear of one’s father and mother to the fear of the Omnipresent. Likewise, it is stated: “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), and it is stated: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15). The verse equates the blessing, a euphemism for cursing, of one’s father and mother to the blessing of the Omnipresent. But with regard to striking, i.e., with regard to the halakha that one who strikes his father or mother is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, it is certainly not possible to say the same concerning the Holy One, Blessed be He. And so too, the equating of one’s attitude toward his parents to his attitude toward God is a logical derivation, as the three of them are partners in his creation. As the Sages taught: There are three partners in the forming of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, who provides the soul, and his father and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honor Me as well. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son honors his mother more than he honors his father, because she persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. Therefore, in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother. The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him. Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering as well, as it were. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is considered as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent from that place, and it is as though he pushes His feet away from the earth.

With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It is prohibited for a person to walk even four cubits with an upright posture, which is considered an arrogant manner, as it is stated: “The entire world is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). One who walks in an arrogant manner indicates a lack of regard for the glory and honor of God that is surrounding him, and thereby chases God from that place, as it were. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully. The son of one widow asked Rabbi Eliezer: If my father says to me: Give me water to drink, and my mother also says to me: Give me water to drink, which of them should I honor first? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Set aside the honor of your mother, and perform the honor of your father, as you and your mother are both obligated in the honor of your father. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua and asked him the same question, and Rabbi Yehoshua said this same answer to him. The man said to him: My teacher, if one’s mother is divorced, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: From your eyelashes, which are filled with tears, it is evident that you are the son of a widow, and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as one does to summon chickens. In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence.

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rav Ulla said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] from him for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, but the key for the container in which the merchandise was kept was placed under his father’s head, and he was sleeping at the time. And Dama ben Netina would not disturb his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and the name of the son was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages wished to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana taught that it was eight hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit. And the key to the chest holding the jewels was placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him. The next year the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Dama ben Netina his reward, as a red heifer was born in his herd, and the Jews needed it. When the Sages of Israel came to him he said to them: I know, concerning you, that if I were to ask for all the money in the world you would give it to me. But I ask only that money that I lost due to the honor of Father. And Rabbi Ḥanina says: And if this is related about one who is not commanded by the Torah to honor his father, as Dama was a gentile, and nevertheless when he performs the mitzva he is given this great reward, all the more so is one rewarded who is commanded to fulfill a mitzva and performs it. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it.

Rav Yosef, who was blind, said: At first I would say: If someone would tell me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: A blind person is exempt from fulfilling the mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis, as I am not commanded and yet I perform the mitzvot. This means my reward is very great. Now that I have heard that which Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded to do a mitzva and performs it, on the contrary: If someone would tell me that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a blind person is obligated in mitzvot, I would make a festive day for the rabbis. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Dama ben Netina was wearing a fine cloak [sirkon] of gold, and was sitting among the nobles of Rome. And his mother came to him and tore his garment from him and smacked him on the head and spat in his face, and yet he did not embarrass her. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There is a type of son who feeds his father pheasant [pasyonei] and yet this behavior causes him to be removed from the World, i.e., the World-to-Come; and there is one who makes him grind with a millstone, which is difficult work, and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her? When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregnant with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother. Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more. Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her. The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come.

The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father. How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come. The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name? Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so. The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: From whose funds must one give his father food and drink? Rav Yehuda says: From the money of the son. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: From the money of the father. The Sages gave this following ruling to Rav Yirmeya, and some say they gave this following ruling to the son of Rav Yirmeya: The halakha is like the one who says it must be paid from the money of the father. The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference to him with regard to the neglect of his work. Although he is not required to spend his own money, the son must leave aside his work to honor his father, which will cause him some financial loss. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Two brothers, or two partners in the ownership of produce, or a father and son, or a rabbi and his student, may redeem the second tithe for each other without adding one-fifth, as one who redeems the tithe of another, including these individuals, is not required to add one-fifth. And they may feed each other the poor man’s tithe. If one of them is poor, the other may give him the poor man’s tithe that he separated from his produce, and it is not considered as though the pauper ate the poor man’s tithe from his own produce. The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita. And if you say that the obligation to honor one’s father is from the money of the son, one finds that this son repays his obligation from the produce of the poor, as he is taking care of his father with produce that should go to the poor. The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where he has covered all of his father’s basic needs with his own money. At this stage, if his father needs surplus money, he may give it to him from the poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: If so, consider that which is taught with regard to this baraita. Rabbi Yehuda says: May a curse come upon one who feeds his father the poor man’s tithe. And if this halakha, that one may feed his father the poor man’s tithe, was said with regard to a surplus, what difference is there? Since the son has fulfilled his obligation and simply adds something so that his father will have more, why is this person cursed? The Gemara answers: Even so, it is a disrespectful matter for one to feed his father with money that has been designated as charity for the poor. The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear: They asked Rabbi Eliezer how far one must go in honoring his father and mother. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Such that the father takes a purse and throw it into the sea in front of his son, and the son does not embarrass him. And if you say that the son honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son? Why would the son care if his father throws away his own purse? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a son who is fit to inherit from him. Since the son thinks that the money will eventually belong to him, he has cause for anger. And this is as reflected in an incident involving Rabba bar Rav Huna, when Rav Huna tore silk garments in front of his son Rabba. Rav Huna had said to himself: I will go and see if he becomes angry or does not become angry, i.e., he wanted to test him and see whether his son Rabba would honor him. The Gemara asks: But perhaps his son would become angry and Rav Huna would thereby violate the prohibition of: “Nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as by testing his son Rav Huna would have caused him to sin. The Gemara answers: It was a case where the father had forgone his honor from the outset. Consequently, even if the son grew angry with him, he would not have violated the mitzva. The Gemara asks: But by tearing his clothes, he violates the prohibition: Do not destroy (see Deuteronomy 20:19). The Gemara answers that Rav Huna made a tear at the seam, so that the garment could be repaired. The Gemara asks: Perhaps it was due to that reason that the son did not become angry, because he saw that his father caused no actual damage? The Gemara answers: He did this when the son was already angry for some other reason, so that he would not notice this detail. The Gemara cites another story involving the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother. Rav Yeḥezkel taught his son Rami: If people sentenced to be burned became mingled with those sentenced to be stoned Rabbi Shimon says: All of them are judged with the punishment of stoning, as the punishment of burning is more severe. Since the death penalty of each is uncertain, all of them are treated leniently. Rav Yehuda, who was also Rav Yeḥezkel’s son, said to him: Father, do not teach the mishna this way, as, according to this version, why is this the halakha specifically because burning is more severe than stoning? Let him derive it from the fact that the majority are sentenced to be stoned. The wording of the baraita, which states that those who were supposed to be burned became mixed up with those who were to be stoned, indicates that the people sentenced to stoning are the majority. If so, one should simply follow the majority. Rather, I will teach it this way: If those who are sentenced to be stoned became mixed up with those who are sentenced to be burned, they are all judged with the punishment of stoning even though this is the minority, as they are all treated leniently. Rav Yeḥezkel said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that they should be judged with the punishment of burning, as the punishment of stoning is more severe. According to your version, why is this the halakha specifically because stoning is more severe? Let him derive it due to the fact that the majority of people are sentenced to be burned, and one follows the majority. His son Rav Yehuda said to him: The statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as there the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Shimon as follows: That which you said, that burning is more severe, is not the case; rather, stoning is more severe. In other words, the Rabbis were specifically responding to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning, and therefore they stated the opposite claim and ignored the issue of which group is in the majority. Later, Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one, do not speak to your father like that, as it is disrespectful. As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s father was transgressing a Torah matter, he should not say to him explicitly: Father, you transgressed a Torah matter. Rather, he should say to him: Father, so it is written in the Torah. The Gemara asks: If he says to him directly: This is what is written in the Torah, he will cause him suffering. Rather, he should say to him: Father, this verse is written in the Torah, and he should proceed to quote the verse, from which his father will understand on his own that he has acted improperly.

§ Elazar ben Matya says: If my father says: Give me water, and there is a mitzva for me to perform at the same time, I set aside the honor of my father and perform the mitzva, as my father and I are both obligated in the mitzva. Isi ben Yehuda says: If it is possible for this mitzva to be performed by others, let it be performed by others, and he should go and attend to the honor due to his father, as the honor of his father is his obligation alone. Rav Mattana says: The halakha with regard to this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. Rav Yitzḥak bar Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to a father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, and his son does not transgress if he does not treat him in the proper manner. By contrast, with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is not forgone. And Rav Yosef says: Even with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone, as it is stated: “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exodus 13:21). God Himself, the Teacher of the Jewish people, had forgone the honor due Him and took the trouble to guide the people. Rava said: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His, and therefore He can forgo His honor. By contrast, here, is it his Torah, that the teacher can forgo its honor? Rava then said: Yes, if he studies, it is his Torah, as it is written: “For his delight is the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night” (Psalms 1:2). This indicates that at first it is “the Torah of the Lord,” but after he studies, it becomes “his Torah.” The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava served drinks to the guests at his son’s wedding celebration, and he poured a cup for Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and they stood before him when he approached them. When he poured a cup for Rav Mari and for Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, they did not stand before him. Rava became angry and said: Are these Sages, i.e., Rav Mari and Rav Pineḥas, Sages, and are those Sages, who stood to honor me, not Sages? Do you think you are so great that you are not required to honor a Sage? And furthermore, it happened that Rav Pappa was serving drinks to the guests at the wedding celebration [hillula] of Abba Mar, his son, and he poured a cup for Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and he did not stand before him, and Rav Pappa became angry. These anecdotes indicate that even when a rabbi forgoes the honor due to him by serving drinks to his guests, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara answers: A rabbi can forgo the full measure of honor due to him, but even so, others are required to perform some act of reverence, such as preparing to stand before him. Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a rabbi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok, who were reclining at the wedding of Rabban Gamliel’s son. And Rabban Gamliel, who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, was standing over them and serving them drinks. He gave the cup to Rabbi Eliezer and he would not accept it; he gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua and he accepted it. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua? We sit and the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stands over us and serves us drinks? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We found one greater than him who served his guests, as our forefather Abraham was greater than him and he served his guests. Abraham was the greatest man of his generation and it is written about him: “And he stood over them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). And lest you say: His guests appeared to him as ministering angels, and that is why he honored them, in fact they appeared to him only as Arabs. And if so, should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? Rabbi Tzadok said to them: For how long will you ignore the honor due to the Omnipresent, and deal with the honor of people? You could cite a proof from God Himself. After all, the Holy One, Blessed be He, makes the winds blow, and raises the clouds, and brings the rain, and causes the earth to sprout, and sets a table before each and every creature. And should not the esteemed Rabban Gamliel stand over us and serve us drinks? This discussion indicates that even a Nasi may forgo the honor due him. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a king forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. As it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), which indicates that his fear should be upon you. The people are commanded to fear a king, and therefore it is not permitted for him to forgo the honor due to him.

The Master said previously: One might have thought that one should also stand before an Elder in the lavatory or in the bathhouse; therefore, the verse said: “You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates that the mitzva of standing applies only in a place where there is reverence. The Gemara asks: And does one not show honor in a lavatory? But Rabbi Ḥiyya was sitting in a bathhouse and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi passed by, and he did not stand before him. And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became angry and went and said to his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I taught Rabbi Ḥiyya two of the five parts of the book of Psalms, and yet he did not stand before me. This indicates that a display of honor is appropriate even in a bathhouse. And furthermore, bar Kappara, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yosei, was sitting in a bathhouse. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered and passed by, and he did not stand before him. Rabbi Shimon became angry and went and said to his father: I taught him two of the nine parts of Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, and yet he did not stand before me. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Shimon: Perhaps he was sitting and contemplating what you taught him and did not see you come in. The Gemara explains the proof: The fact that the reason he might have been exempt was that he was sitting and pondering the lessons indicates that if that were not so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not have justified such behavior. One must stand before a Sage even in a bathhouse. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This halakha, that one is not required to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the inner rooms, where everyone is naked; standing in a place of this kind certainly does not bestow honor. That halakha, that one is obligated to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the outer rooms, where people are still dressed. Standing is a sign of respect in these rooms. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct explanation, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere, except for the bathhouse and the lavatory. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested that the student might have been sitting and pondering his studies, it can be assumed that the episode occurred in a location where only some of the halakhot governing one’s behavior in a bathhouse apply, i.e., the outer rooms. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps one whose studies are beyond his control is different; it is possible he was so absorbed in Torah study that he forgot that he was in a place where it is prohibited to think about sacred matters. It is taught in the same baraita: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder; therefore, the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand, and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32). The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who would intentionally act this way to avoid fulfilling a mitzva? Rather, this means: One might have thought that one may close his eyes before the obligation to stand arrives, i.e., when the elder is still far off. This would mean that when the obligation does arrive he will not see him, such that he would be required to stand before him. In this manner he thinks that he can avoid the obligation altogether. Therefore the verse states: “You shall stand…and you shall fear,” i.e., one should fear He who knows the secrets of one’s heart.

§ A Sage taught: What is the type of standing that indicates reverence? You must say that this applies when it is clear that one is standing in the elder’s honor, which is within four cubits of him. Abaye said: We said this halakha, that one must stand within four cubits of the elder, only with regard to one who is not his primary teacher; but for his primary teacher he must stand when he is within his range of vision, i.e., as soon as he sees him, even if he is more than four cubits away. The Gemara likewise reports that Abaye would stand as soon as he saw the ear of Rav Yosef’s donkey coming toward him. The Gemara relates: Abaye was riding a donkey along the bank of the Sagya River. Rav Mesharshiyya and other rabbis were sitting on the other bank of the river, and they did not stand before him. Abaye said to them: Am I not your primary teacher? You are therefore required to stand before me, despite the fact that I am far away. They said to him: That did not enter our minds, i.e., we did not see you at all. § It was further stated in the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” Abaye said: We have a tradition that if a Sage circumnavigates an area so that people will not have to stand before him, he will live a long life. The Gemara relates that Abaye would circumnavigate an area, and likewise Rabbi Zeira would circumnavigate an area. The Gemara cites another incident involving honor one demonstrates for his teacher. Once, when Ravina was sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti, a certain man passed before him and did not cover his head. Ravina said: How rude is this man, who does not show respect by covering his head in honor of a rabbi. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to him: Perhaps he is from the city of Mata Meḥasya, where rabbis are common and the people living there are consequently not as careful to display honor as those in other places.

§ It was stated previously that Isi ben Yehuda says that as the verse states: “Before the hoary head you shall stand,” it indicates that even anyone of hoary head is included, not only a Torah scholar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan himself would stand before Aramean, i.e., gentile, elders. He said: How many experiences [harpatkei] have occurred to these individuals. It is appropriate to honor them, due to the wisdom they have garnered from their long lives. Rava would not stand before them, but he displayed reverence to them. Abaye would extend a hand to elders so that they could lean on him. Rava would send his agent to help them. Rav Naḥman would send officers [goza’ei], his servants, to assist elders. He said: If not for the Torah, how many people named Naḥman bar Abba would there be in the marketplace? In other words, I am not permitted to treat my Torah study lightly by assisting them myself, as I can perform this mitzva through others. Rabbi Aivu says that Rabbi Yannai says: A Torah scholar is permitted to stand before his teacher only once in the morning and once in the evening, so that the teacher’s honor should not be greater than the honor of Heaven, as one recites the Shema, which is tantamount to greeting God, once in the morning and once in the evening. The Gemara raises an objection from an aforementioned opinion. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: “An elder, and you shall fear” (Leviticus 19:32). The collocation of these words comes to teach that the elder, too, must fear God. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say one may stand only in the morning and evening, why does the baraita say an elder should not trouble others? Standing for an elder only twice a day is an obligation for the people, not an imposition. Rather, is it not correct to say that one is obligated to stand before one’s teacher at any point during the day? The Gemara answers: No; actually one is obligated to stand only in the morning and evening, and even so, as much as it is possible for the elder, he should not trouble the people to stand. § Rabbi Elazar said: Any Torah scholar who does not stand before his teacher is called wicked, and he will not live a long life, and his studies will be forgotten, as it is stated: “But it shall not be well for the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before [millifnei] God” (Ecclesiastes 8:13). This fear mentioned in the verse, I do not know what it is. When the verse states: “And you shall revere the face [penei] of an elder, and you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 19:32), one can deduce that this fear mentioned in the verse is referring to standing. Consequently, this verse teaches with regard to one who does not stand that he is called wicked, he will not live a long life, and his studies will be forgotten, as indicated by the phrase: “It shall not be well.” The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is referring to fear of God stated with regard to interest (Leviticus 25:36), or the fear of God stated with regard to weights (Deuteronomy 25:13–16), as the fear of God is mentioned with regard to these prohibitions as well. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar derives this halakha through a verbal analogy of “penei” and “penei,” as explained previously, not from a verbal analogy of the term “fear.”

A dilemma was raised before them: What is the halakha as to whether one should stand before a Torah scroll? Rabbi Ḥilkiya and Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Elazar say that this dilemma can be resolved by an a fortiori inference: If one stands before those who study the Torah, is it not all the more so true that one should stand before the Torah itself? The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elai and Rabbi Ya’akov bar Zavdi were sitting and studying Torah. Rabbi Shimon bar Abba passed before them and they stood before him. Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said to them: You are not obligated to do this, for two reasons. One reason is that you are ordained scholars and I am only an associate, i.e., he had not been ordained. And furthermore, does the Torah stand before those who study it? Since you are engaged in Torah study at the present moment you are not required to stand before a Torah scholar. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Shimon bar Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: A Torah scholar may not stand before his teacher when he is studying Torah, because he is engaged in honoring the Torah itself. The Gemara adds: Even so, Abaye cursed anyone who acted in accordance with this ruling, as he would give the appearance of one who disrespected his teacher.

§ The mishna teaches that women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. The Sages taught: What is a positive, time-bound mitzva? Examples include residing in a sukka, and taking the lulav, and blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana, all of which can be performed only at specific times of the year. And another example is donning ritual fringes, as the mitzva applies only during the daytime due to the verse which states: “Fringes, that you may look upon them” (Numbers 15:39), indicating that the fringes should be seen. And the donning of phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8), which are not worn at night or on Shabbat and Festivals, is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. And what is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? Examples include the affixing of a mezuza (Deuteronomy 11:20), the construction of a parapet on a roof (Deuteronomy 22:8), returning a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1–3), and the release of the mother bird from the nest, i.e., the mitzva of sending away a mother bird when one finds it sitting on chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The Gemara asks: But is this an established principle? But there are the mitzvot of eating matza on the first night of Passover (Exodus 23:15), of rejoicing on a Festival (Deuteronomy 16:9–11), and assembly on Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). And each of these is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are obligated in them. And furthermore, one can raise a difficulty as follows: But there are the mitzvot of Torah study (Deuteronomy 6:7), procreation (Genesis 1:28), and redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12–13), each of which is not a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are exempt from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One does not learn practical halakhot from general statements, i.e., when a general statement appears in a mishna and uses the term: All, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive statement without exceptions. This is the case even in a place where it says: Except, to exclude a specific matter.

§ The Gemara turns to the sources of this principle. From where do we derive that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot? It is derived by juxtaposition from the mitzva of phylacteries: Just as women are exempt from donning phylacteries, so too, women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. And the exemption of women from donning phylacteries is derived from their exemption from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, as derived from Deuteronomy 11:19, so too women are exempt from donning phylacteries, as the two issues are juxtaposed in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7–8). The Gemara asks: And let us say the opposite and juxtapose phylacteries to mezuza, which is also mentioned in that passage. Mezuza is a mitzva in which women are also obligated. Based on this comparison, women would be obligated in phylacteries as well. The Gemara answers: Phylacteries are juxtaposed to Torah study in both the first paragraph and in the second paragraph of Shema, whereas phylacteries are not juxtaposed to mezuza in the second paragraph. It is therefore preferable to compare phylacteries to Torah study. The Gemara says: But if so, let us juxtapose mezuza to Torah study and say that women are also exempt from the obligation of a mezuza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This could not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “That your days may be multiplied” (Deuteronomy 11:21). Can it be said that men need life but women do not need life? Since the reward for the performance of the mitzva of mezuza is extended life, this mitzva applies to women as well.

MISHNA: Anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land, i.e., life in the World-to-Come. And anyone who does not perform one mitzva does not have goodness bestowed upon him, his life is not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land of the World-to-Come. GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality toward guests, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. This indicates that one is rewarded in this world only for fulfilling these mitzvot, but not for fulfilling all mitzvot. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits, and thereby tips the scale of all his deeds to the side of righteousness, has goodness bestowed upon him and is compared to one who fulfills the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference from here that with regard to those mitzvot listed in the mishna in Pe’a one is rewarded even for one of them, notwithstanding the fact that overall his sins are more numerous. Rav Shemaya said: The other mishna serves to say that if one’s sins and merits were of equal balance, i.e., he has accrued an equal amount of merit and sin, one of these mitzvot tilts the scale in his favor. The Gemara further asks: And does anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering in order to cleanse his sins in this world and enable him to merit full reward for his mitzvot in the World-to-Come. And due to this punishment he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. Conversely, anyone whose sins are greater than his merits has goodness bestowed upon him in this world, and he appears like one who has fulfilled the entire Torah without lacking the fulfillment of even one letter of it. Abaye said: When the mishna said that he is rewarded, it means that he has one good day and one bad day. He is rewarded for the mitzvot he performs; nevertheless, occasionally he also has bad days which cleanse him of his sins, and the baraita is referring to those days. Rava said that the mishna and this baraita represent two different opinions. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says: There is no reward for performance of a mitzva in this world, as one is rewarded for mitzvot only World-to-Come. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: There is not a single mitzva written in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the reward is actually bestowed in the World-to-Come, after the resurrection of the dead. How so? With regard to honoring one’s father and mother it is written: “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). With regard to the dispatch of the mother bird from the nest it is written: “That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7). Despite this, it occurred that there was one whose father said to him: Climb to the top of the building and fetch me chicks. And he climbed to the top of the building and dispatched the mother bird and took the young, thereby simultaneously fulfilling the mitzva to dispatch the mother bird from the nest and the mitzva to honor one’s parents, but upon his return he fell and died. Where is the goodness of the days of this one, and where is the length of days of this one? Rather, the verse “that it may be well with you” means in the world where all is well, and “that your days may be long” is referring to the world that is entirely long. The Gemara asks: But perhaps this incident never occurred? It is possible that everyone who performs these mitzvot is rewarded in this world, and the situation described by Rabbi Ya’akov never happened. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov himself saw an incident of this kind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps that man was contemplating sin at the time, and he was punished for his thoughts? The Gemara answers that there is a principle that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone. The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was contemplating idol worship at the time, and it is written with regard to idol worship: “So I may take the house of Israel in their own heart” (Ezekiel 14:5), which indicates that one is punished for idolatrous thoughts. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov was saying this as well: If it enters your mind that there is reward for performing a mitzva in this world, why didn’t these mitzvot protect him so that he should not come to contemplate idol worship? Since that man was not protected from thoughts of idol worship at the time, this indicates that the performance of mitzvot does not entitle one to merit reward in this world. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm? How is it possible that this individual, who was sent by his father to perform a mitzva, could have died? The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Elazar is referring those on their way to perform a mitzva, which is different, as one is not susceptible to harm when he is on his way to fulfill a mitzva. In this case the individual was harmed on his return, and one is not afforded protection after having performed a mitzva. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm, neither when they are on their way to perform the mitzva nor when they are returning from performing the mitzva? The Gemara answers: In that case it was a rickety ladder, and therefore the danger was established; and anywhere that the danger is established one may not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to sacrifice an offering to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Although God Himself issued the command, there was concern with regard to the established dangers. Rav Yosef said: Had Aḥer, literally Other, the appellation of the former Sage Elisha ben Avuya, interpreted this aforementioned verse: “That it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16), homiletically, as referring to the World-to-Come, as did Rabbi Ya’akov, son of his daughter, he would not have sinned. The Gemara asks: And what caused Aḥer to sin? There are those who say he saw a case like this, where a son went up to the roof on his father’s command, dispatched the mother bird, and then died. It was witnessing this episode that led Elisha ben Avuya astray. And there are those who say that he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the disseminator after the latter was executed by the government, thrown in the street, and dragged along by something else, a euphemism for a pig. He said: Shall a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt? For this reason he went out and sinned. § Rav Tuvi bar Rav Kisna raises a contradiction to Rava and asked: We learned in the mishna that anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him. This indicates that if one actually performed the mitzva, yes, he is rewarded, but if he did not perform the mitzva, no, he does not receive a reward. He raises a contradiction based on the following statement: If one sits and does not transgress, he receives a reward as one who performs a mitzva, despite the fact that he does not actually perform a mitzva. Rava said to him: There, when it is referring to one who sits and does not transgress, it does not mean that he was merely sitting; rather, it is speaking of a case where an opportunity to commit a sinful act presents itself to him and he is saved from it. This is like an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, who was enticed by a certain noblewoman [matronita] to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said a formula of an incantation and was covered with boils and scabs so as to render himself unattractive to her. She performed an act of magic and he was healed. He fled and hid in a bathhouse that was so dangerous, due to the demons that frequented the place, that when two people entered together even during the day they would be harmed. The next day the Sages said to him: Who protected you in that dangerous place? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said to them: There were angels who appeared like two soldiers [nosei keisar] who guarded me all night. They said to him: Perhaps a matter of forbidden intercourse presented itself to you and you were saved from it, which is why a miracle occurred for you. As we learned: With regard to anyone to whom a matter of forbidden intercourse presented itself to him and he was saved from it, a miracle is performed for him. As it says: “Mighty in strength who fulfill His word, hearkening to the voice of His word” (Psalms 103:20). This is referring to one such as Rabbi Tzadok and his colleagues. To what is this referring? Rabbi Tzadok was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said to her: My heart is weak and I am incapable at present; is there something to eat that can strengthen me? She said to him: There is something non-kosher. He said to her: What difference is there? One who performs such an act eats such food as well. She lit the oven and placed the non-kosher food in it to roast. He climbed and sat in the oven. She said to him: What is the meaning of this? He said to her: One who performs this act falls into this, i.e., the fires of Gehenna. She said to him: If I had known that the matter was so serious for you, I would not have caused you such anguish. The Gemara further relates: Rav Kahana would sell baskets woven from palm leaves to women. He was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in intercourse with her. He said to her: Let me go and adorn myself beforehand. He ascended to the roof and fell from the roof toward the ground. Elijah the prophet came and caught him. Elijah the prophet said to Rav Kahana: You have troubled me to travel four hundred parasangs [parsei] to save you. Rav Kahana said to him: What caused me to be in this situation of temptation? Was it not poverty, as I am forced to engage in a trade that leads me to come into contact with women? Elijah gave him a basket [shifa] full of dinars, to spare him from having to work as a salesman. § Rava raises a contradiction to Rav Naḥman and asks: We learned in a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. Rava cites the source for each of these assertions. With regard to honoring one’s father and mother, it is written: “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16), which indicates that one is rewarded in this world. With regard to acts of loving kindness it is written: “He who pursues righteousness and kindness shall find life, prosperity, and honor” (Proverbs 21:21), all of which apply in this world. And with regard to bringing peace it is written: “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:15). And Rabbi Abbahu says: This is derived through a verbal analogy between the term pursuing written with regard to pursuing peace and the term pursuing written in another verse. It is written here: “Seek peace and pursue it,” and it is written there, with regard to acts of kindness: “Pursues righteousness and kindness.” This teaches that one who pursues peace will also merit life, prosperity, and honor. With regard to Torah study it is written: “For that is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20). Rava asked: With regard to the dispatch of the mother bird from the nest it is also written: “That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7), so let him also teach this mitzva. Rav Naḥman answered: He taught some cases and omitted others, i.e., the tanna did not list everything. Rava said to him: The tanna taught: These are the matters, which indicates that only these mitzvot are included, and yet you say that he taught some and omitted others? Rather, Rava said: Rav Idi explained the matter to me. The verse states: “Say you of the righteous who is good, that they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10). And this verse is difficult, as is there a righteous person who is good and is there a righteous person who is not good? Rather, this verse should be understood as follows: One who is good both toward Heaven and toward people is a good righteous person; one who is good toward Heaven but bad toward people is a righteous person who is not good. Rava continues: On a similar note, it is written: “Woe to the evil wicked one, for the work of his hands shall be done to him” (Isaiah 3:11). And is there a wicked man who is evil and is there one who is not evil? Rather, one who is evil toward Heaven and evil toward people is an evil wicked person; and one who is evil toward Heaven and not evil toward people is a wicked person who is not evil. With regard to the issue at hand, only one who performs mitzvot that benefit others receives the profits of his mitzvot in this world. This does not apply to dispatching the mother bird, which is an act that does not benefit other people. § With regard to the mishna in Pe’a, the Gemara states: An act of merit has a principal reward and it has profits, i.e., one receives additional reward beyond that which is granted for the mitzva itself, parallel to a principal sum and profits, as it is stated: “Say you of the righteous who is good, that they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10). A sin has a principal penalty but it has no profits, i.e., no punishment beyond that, as it is stated: “Woe to the evil wicked one, for the work of his hands shall be done to him” (Isaiah 3:11), but no more than the work of his hands. But how do I realize the meaning of the following verse that deals with sinners: “Therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Proverbs 1:31)? This verse indicates that the penalty for sin goes beyond its principal, and the wicked receive additional punishments. The Gemara answers that this applies to a sin that produces profits, i.e., a case where there are practical consequences to one’s sin. For example, if others learn to act in a similar manner, one’s actions have profits with regard to punishment as well. Conversely, a sin that does not produce profits does not have profits as a punishment either. The Gemara further teaches: The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzva but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzva, as he is among those that think upon His name. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link an evil thought to an action, as it is stated: “If I had regarded iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not hear” (Psalms 66:18). But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “Behold I will bring upon these people evil, even the fruit of their thoughts” (Jeremiah 6:19)? In the case of an evil thought that produces fruit, i.e., that leads to an action, the Holy One, Blessed be He, links it to the action and one is punished for the thought as well. If it is a thought that does not produce fruit, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link it to the action. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is written: “So I may take the house of Israel in their own heart” (Ezekiel 14:5), which indicates that one can be punished for thoughts alone, to what is this verse referring? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: That is written with regard to idol worship, as the Master says: Idol worship is very severe, as anyone who denies it is like one who admits the truth of the entire Torah. Conversely, one who embraces idolatry is considered to have rejected the entire Torah. Due to the severity of idol worship, one is punished even for contemplating this transgression. Ulla said: This should be explained in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: When a person transgresses and repeats his transgression, it is permitted to him. The Gemara questions this statement: Can it enter your mind that the transgression is permitted to him because he has sinned twice? Rather, it becomes as if it were permitted to him, as he becomes accustomed to this behavior and no longer senses that it is a sin. Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: It is preferable for a person to transgress in secret and not to desecrate the name of Heaven in public [befarhesya], as it is stated: “As for you, house of Israel, so says the Lord God: Go you, serve everyone his idols, even because you will not hearken to Me, but My sacred name you shall not profane” (Ezekiel 20:39). Rabbi Ilai the Elder says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is overcoming him, he should go to a place where he is not known, and wear black clothes, and he should cover himself in simple black garments, and he should do as his heart desires, but he should not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to anyone who does not care about his Creator’s honor, it is fitting for him not to have come into the world. What is this? Who is considered to be one who does not care about his Creator’s honor? Rabba says: This is one who gazes at a rainbow, which is described as: “The likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezekiel 1:28). Rav Yosef says: This is one who transgresses in secret, which shows that he fears other people but does not care about the honor of his Creator. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this source, which says that one who transgresses in secret does not care about his Creator’s honor, is referring to one who can overcome his evil inclination but nevertheless chooses to transgress in secret. And that source, which states that it is preferable for him to transgress in secret, is referring to one who cannot overcome his evil inclination. We learned in a mishna there (see Avot 4:5): Credit is not given with regard to the desecration of God’s name, whether one sinned unintentionally or intentionally. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Credit is not given [makkifin]? Mar Zutra says: This means that God does not act like a storekeeper and provide credit. Rather, one is punished without delay. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: This means to say that if one’s merit and sins were equal, the sin of the desecration of God’s name tilts the balance of the scales toward the side of his sins. In other words, if his sins include the transgression of desecrating God’s name, God does not wait for this individual to perform a mitzva to balance out the sin. The Sages taught: Always a person should view himself as though he were exactly half-liable and half-meritorious. In other words he should act as though the plates of his scale are balanced, so that if he performs one mitzva he is fortunate, as he tilts his balance to the scale of merit. If he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts his balance to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good” (Ecclesiastes 9:18), which means that due to one sin that a person transgresses he squanders much good. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Since the world is judged by its majority, i.e., depending on whether people have performed a majority of mitzvot or a majority of sins, and an individual is likewise judged by his majority, each person must consider that if he performs one mitzva he is praiseworthy, as he tilts the balance of himself and the entire world to the scale of merit. Conversely, if he transgresses one prohibition, woe to him, as he tilts the balance for himself and the entire world to the scale of liability, as it is stated: “But one sin destroys much good,” i.e., due to one sin that this individual commits, he squanders much goodness from himself and from the entire world. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Even if one was completely righteous all his life and he rebelled by sinning at the end of his life, he loses his early merit, as it is stated: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him on the day of his transgression” (Ezekiel 33:12). And similarly, even if one was completely wicked all his life and repented in the end, he is no longer reminded of his wickedness, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not stumble over it on the day that he turns from his wickedness.” The Gemara asks: But an individual who performed mitzvot all of his life and then sins should at least be like one whose acts have been half sins and half merits, i.e., each should be of equal weight. Why, then, is he pronounced guilty? Reish Lakish said: This is not referring to an individual who has merely sinned but to one who regrets all the initial mitzvot he performed in the past. In this case the mitzvot he performed are not taken into account. MISHNA: Anyone who is engaged in the study of Bible, and in the study of Mishna, and in the desired mode of behavior, i.e., he performs labor and generally acts in an appropriate manner, will not be quick to sin, as it is stated: “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). One who is involved in all three of these activities will not sin easily. And anyone who does not engage in the study of Bible, nor the study of Mishna, nor the desired mode of behavior, is not part of society, i.e., he is not considered a civilized person at all.

The Gemara questions the statement that there is no agency for transgressions: But there is that which is taught in a baraita: One who says to his agent: Go kill a person, he, the killer, is liable if he kills, and the one who appointed him is exempt. Shammai the Elder says in the name of Haggai the prophet: The one who appointed him is liable, as it stated with regard to David, who directed Joab to kill Uriah: “Him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon” (II Samuel 12:9). David was held responsible for the death of Uriah. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Shammai the Elder? How can he say that there is agency for transgression? The Gemara answers: He holds that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and therefore he learns from the two cases of misuse of consecrated property and slaughter or sale that there is agency for transgression. And as for the derivation from one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple, which teaches that there is no agent for transgression, Shammai does not interpret the variation from “hu” to “hahu.” And if you wish, say instead: Actually it is possible that he does interpret the variation, and he agrees that there is no agent for transgression. And what is the meaning of Shammai’s statement that the one who appoints him is liable? It means he is liable according to the laws of Heaven, although he cannot be punished by a human court. The Gemara asks: By inference, does this mean that the first tanna holds that he is exempt even according to the laws of Heaven? The one who appointed him must bear some responsibility. Rather, the first tanna also agrees that the one who appointed the killer is liable according to the laws of Heaven, and the difference between them pertains to a great judgment and a small judgment. According to Shammai, his liability is great, to the extent that Heaven considers him fully responsible, whereas the first tanna holds that his liability is of a lesser degree. And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that there is no agent for transgression. Nevertheless, Shammai holds that there, with regard to killing, it is different, since the Merciful One reveals: “Him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon,” explicitly rendering David accountable for this transgression and indicating that killing is different from all other transgressions. And the other opinion, i.e., the first tanna, who holds that the one who appoints the killer is exempt, explains the verse as follows: Behold this killing is for you like the sword of Ammon. Just as you are not punished for those killed by the sword of Ammon in the course of the war, so too you are not punished for the death of Uriah the Hittite, not even according to the laws of Heaven. What is the reason for this? Uriah was a rebel against the monarchy and was consequently liable to the death penalty, as he said to King David: “And my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field” (II Samuel 11:11). By referring to Joab as his lord in front of the king, he indicated that he answered to Joab rather than to the king, which is tantamount to rebellion. Rava said: If you say that Shammai holds that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and he does not interpret the variation from “hu” to “hahu,” the combination of which would result in him holding that there is agency for transgression in all cases, even he concedes with regard to one who says to his agent: Go and engage in sexual intercourse with a forbidden relative, or: Go and eat forbidden fat, that the agent is liable and the one who appointed him is exempt, as we have not found in the entire Torah a case where this person physically benefits from the transgression but that one becomes liable.

The Sages taught: After the death of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda said to his students: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious [kanteranim]. And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Sumakhos, a student of Rabbi Meir, pushed and entered anyway. He said to them: This is what Rabbi Meir taught me: With regard to a priest who betroths a woman with his portion of the offerings, whether he did so with offerings of the most sacred order or whether he used offerings of lesser sanctity, he has not betrothed her. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yehuda became angry with his students. He said to them: Didn’t I say this to you: Do not let the students of Rabbi Meir enter here into our house of study, because they are vexatious? And they do not come to study Torah, but rather they come to overwhelm me with halakhot. Rabbi Yehuda explained his objection to the statement of Rabbi Meir: This halakha is not relevant, as from where would a woman appear in the Temple courtyard? Women may not enter the area of the Temple courtyard where the priests eat the offerings of the most sacred order, so there is no reason to address an impossible scenario. Rabbi Yosei, who was present, said: They will say: Meir died, Yehuda grew angry, and Yosei remained silent; what will become of the words of Torah? He said: In fact, this halakha is relevant; but isn’t it common for a man to accept betrothal for his daughter in the Temple courtyard? There is no need to give the betrothal item directly to the woman; it can be given to her father. And additionally, isn’t it common for a woman to designate an agent for herself to accept her betrothal in the courtyard? And furthermore: What would be the halakha if the woman pushed and entered? Since it is possible for her to do so, the halakha in such a case must be determined.

And Rabba bar Rav Adda says, and some say Rabbi Salla says that Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry due to her lineage, Elijah binds him in the manner that those liable to receive lashes are bound, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. And a Sage taught: Concerning all of them, Elijah writes and the Holy One, Blessed be He, signs the following: Woe to he who disqualifies his offspring, and who brings a flaw to his family lineage, and who marries a woman who is not halakhically suited for him to marry. Elijah binds him and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. He further said: And anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication that one’s lineage is flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel says: If one habitually claims that others are flawed, he disqualifies himself with his own flaw. The flaw he accuses them of having is in fact the one that he has.

§ The Gemara recounts a related incident: There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you. The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said. Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar. They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves. Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew. The Gemara continues the story: That man went and summoned Rav Yehuda to judgment before Rav Naḥman, who was a judge in Neharde’a. When the summons arrived in Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda went before Rav Huna to seek his council. Rav Yehuda said to him: Should I go or should I not go? Rav Huna said to him: As for the obligation to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of Rav Naḥman’s court. But due to the honor of the Exilarch’s house, as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, get up and go. Rav Yehuda arrived in Neharde’a and found Rav Naḥman constructing a parapet. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that halakha that Rav Huna bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community, he is prohibited from performing labor before three people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is merely a little fence [gundarita] that I am constructing. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ma’akeh, which is written in the Torah, or the corresponding term meḥitza, which the Sages said, distasteful to you? Why do you use a term that is used by neither the Torah nor the Sages? During their meeting, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let the Master sit on the bench [karfita]. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term safsal, which the Sages said, or the word itzteva, which common people say, distasteful to you? Why are you using uncommon terms? Rav Naḥman then said to him: Let the Master eat a citron [etronga]. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel said: Anyone who says etronga demonstrates one-third of a haughtiness of spirit. Why? He should either say etrog, as the Sages called it, or etroga, as common people say in Aramaic. Saying etronga is a sign of snobbery, as it was employed by the aristocratic class. He subsequently said to him: Let the Master drink a cup [anbaga] of wine. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ispargus, as the Sages called it, or anpak, as common people say, distasteful to you? Later on, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let my daughter Donag come and pour us drinks. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman for a service such as this. Rav Naḥman replied: She is a minor. Rav Yehuda retorted: Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor. Later on, Rav Naḥman suggested: Let the Master send greetings of peace to my wife Yalta. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness, and one may not speak with her. Rav Naḥman responded: It is possible to send your regards with a messenger. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus. Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason that the Master is here? Rav Yehuda said to him: The Master sent me a summons. Rav Naḥman said to him: Now that I have not even learned the Master’s form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master? Rav Yehuda removed the summons from his bosom and showed it to him. While doing so, Rav Yehuda said to him: Here is the man and here is the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order that people should not say: The Sages flatter one another and do not judge each other according to the letter of the law. Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and said to him: What is the reason that the Master excommunicated that man? Rav Yehuda replied: He caused discomfort to an agent of one of the Sages, and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, let the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages. Rav Yehuda responded: I punished him more severely than that. Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging. Rav Naḥman further inquired: What is the reason that the Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because he is in the habit of calling people slaves, and it is taught: Anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel said: He disqualifies with his own flaw. Rav Naḥman retorted: You can say that Shmuel said this halakha only to the degree that one should suspect him of being of flawed lineage. But did he actually say this to the extent that one could proclaim about him that he is of flawed lineage? The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants. Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, said to Rav Yehuda: Does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to any Torah scholar who proceeds to teach a ruling of halakha with regard to a particular issue, if he said it before an action that concerns himself occurred, they should listen to him, and his ruling is accepted. But if not, if he quoted the halakha only after he was involved in an incident related to the halakha he is quoting, they do not listen to him, due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: There is Rav Mattana, who stands by my report, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel. The Gemara continues: Rav Mattana had not seen the city of Neharde’a for thirteen years. That very day he arrived. Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry? Rav Mattana said to him: This is what Shmuel said at that time: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said: From now on, anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave. The girl then fell from the roof and died, leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans. With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, they also publicized in Neharde’a about him, i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, that he was a slave. The Gemara relates: On that day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a, as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves. When Rav Yehuda was leaving Neharde’a, they pursued him, seeking to stone him, as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda said to them: If you are silent, remain silent. And if you will not remain silent, I will reveal about you this statement that Shmuel said: There are two lines of offspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonic with regard to lineage is: The impure bird, the raven, is impure, meaning flawed, and the pure one, the dove, is pure, meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, they threw all those stones that they were intending to stone him with from their hands, as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. And as a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, a dam arose in the Malka River.

§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and due to their greatness they were assimilated into the priesthood and became known as priests. And any priest who has the trait of insolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde’a. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If you see an insolent priest, do not speculate about him that he may be of flawed lineage, since it is stated: “For your people are as those who strive with a priest” (Hosea 4:4), which indicates that priests had a reputation for being cantankerous.

§ The Gemara discusses an idea raised earlier. Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: Concerning anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, He testifies with regard to all the tribes that they are His people, but He does not testify with regard to he who married improperly, as it is stated: “The tribes of the Lord, as a testimony to Israel” (Psalms 122:4). When is it a testimony to Israel? When the tribes are the tribes of the Lord, but not when their lineage is flawed. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence, He rests it only upon families of unflawed lineage among Israel, as it is stated: “At that time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel” (Jeremiah 30:25). Of all Israel, is not stated, but “of all the families,” which includes only those of unflawed lineage, the renowned families of Israel. The verse from Jeremiah ends with the words “And they shall be my people.” Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This is a higher standard that differentiates between those born as Jews and converts, as with regard to those born as Jews it is written about them: “And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Ezekiel 37:27), whereas with regard to converts it is written: “For who is he that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me? says the Lord. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 30:21–22). This teaches that converts are not drawn close to God, as indicated by the words “And I will be your God,” until they first draw themselves near to God, as indicated by the subsequent phrase “And you shall be my people.” Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people as a scab. The proof is that it is stated: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave [venispeḥu] to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). It is written here “venispeḥu,” and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “And for a sore and for a scab [sappaḥat]” (Leviticus 14:56). The use of a term with a similar root indicates that converts are like a scab for the Jewish people. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies the tribes, i.e., clarifies their lineage, He will purify that of the tribe of Levi first, as it is stated with regard to the angel sent forth by God: “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver; and there shall be they that shall offer to the Lord offerings in righteousness” (Malachi 3:3). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Money purifies mamzerim. Money causes rich mamzerim to become assimilated with Jews of unflawed lineage, since other families marry them despite their flawed lineage. In the future, God will not single them out as mamzerim, as it is stated: “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver,” which teaches that money, i.e., silver, purifies them. What, then, is the connection to the next part of the verse: “They that shall offer to the Lord offerings in righteousness”? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed an act of righteousness with the Jewish people by establishing that a family that has become assimilated with Jews of unflawed lineage remains assimilated. They are not removed from their tribe despite their flawed lineage.

§ The above statement, concerning a matter that the Sages transmitted privately and infrequently, leads the Gemara to teach a similar halakha: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages transmit the correct pronunciation of the four-letter name of God to their students once every seven years, and some say twice every seven years. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It stands to reason in accordance with the one who says that they transmit it once every seven years, as it is written: “This is My name forever [le’olam]” (Exodus 3:15), which is written so that it can be read le’alem, to hide. This indicates that the Divine Name must remain hidden. The Gemara relates: Rava planned to expound and explain the proper way to say the name in a public discourse. A certain elder said to him: It is written so that it can be read le’alem, indicating that it must stay hidden. Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written: “This is My name,” indicating that the name as written is that of God; and it is written: “This is My remembrance” (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that it is not God’s actual name but merely a way of remembering His name. The explanation is as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written with the letters yod, heh, vav, heh, while My name is pronounced with the letters alef, dalet, nun, yod. The Sages taught: Initially, the Sages would transmit the twelve-letter name of God to any person. When the uninhibited ones who used the name disrespectfully increased, they would transmit it only to discreet members of the priesthood, and the discreet members of the priesthood would pronounce the name during the Priestly Benediction. They would conceal it by saying it during the sweet melody of their priestly brothers, so that it would not become publicly known. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Tarfon, who was himself a priest, said: On one occasion I ascended after my mother’s brother to the platform to give the Priestly Benediction, and I inclined my ear near the High Priest, and I heard him conceal the name during the sweet melody of his priestly brothers. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The forty-two-letter name of God may be transmitted only to one who is discreet, and humble, and stands at at least half his life, and does not get angry, and does not get drunk, and does not insist upon his rights but is willing to yield. There is no concern that such a person might reveal the name in a fit of anger or drunkenness. And anyone who knows this name and is careful with it and guards it in purity is beloved above and treasured below; and fear of him is cast upon the creatures; and he inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come.

§ The Gemara returns to the issue of lineage: Shmuel says in the name of a certain elder: A family in Babylonia has a presumptive status of unflawed lineage until it becomes known to you in what way it was rendered of flawed lineage. Conversely, a family from other lands has a presumptive status of flawed lineage until it becomes known to you in what way it was rendered unflawed. As for families in Eretz Yisrael, one who has a presumptive status of flawed lineage is of flawed lineage, whereas one who has presumptive status of unflawed lineage is of unflawed lineage. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: This matter itself is difficult: First, you said that a family that has a presumptive status of flawed lineage is of flawed lineage, indicating that a family with unspecified status is of unflawed lineage. And then you teach: A family that has a presumptive status of unflawed lineage is of unflawed lineage, indicating that a family with unspecified status is of flawed lineage. Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav: This is not difficult. Here, in the final clause, it is referring to marrying a woman to him, and the halakha is that a family with no presumptive status requires investigation before one of them marries. There, in the penultimate clause, it is referring to the court removing a woman from him. The husband is not forced to divorce her unless it has been proven that they may not remain married. Rav Yosef says: Anyone whose speech is Babylonian, i.e., anyone who speaks the Babylonian language with a Babylonian accent, is allowed to marry a woman without having his lineage examined. The presumption is that he is Babylonian, and the lineage of Babylonian families is unflawed. The Gemara comments: But nowadays, when there are swindlers who may speak with Babylonian accents in order to avoid scrutiny, we are concerned even about those who speak like Babylonians. The Gemara relates: The Sage Ze’eiri, a Babylonian, was avoiding Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was from Eretz Yisrael, since the latter kept saying to him: Marry my daughter. One day, when they were walking along the way, they arrived at a large puddle of water. Ze’eiri lifted Rabbi Yoḥanan upon his shoulders and carried him over the puddle out of respect. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Our Torah is fit and worthy of honor in your eyes, and yet our daughters are not fit? What is your reason for not wanting to marry my daughter? Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: If we say a reason not to marry my daughter is from that which we learned in a mishna (69a): There were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, Israelites, as well as many of flawed lineage, and you are concerned about the mamzerim among those who live in Eretz Yisrael, is that to say that all of the priests, Levites, and Israelites ascended to Eretz Yisrael? Certainly, Jews of unflawed lineage remained in Babylonia. Just as there remained from these unflawed categories in Babylonia, there also remained individuals from these, the flawed categories. Therefore, marrying only Babylonians will not alleviate your concern. The Gemara comments: In fact, this statement of Rabbi Elazar escaped Rabbi Yoḥanan: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, and then he ascended. Accordingly, the people who remained in Babylonia were all of unflawed lineage. The Gemara relates another incident: Ulla arrived in Pumbedita to the house of Rav Yehuda. He observed that Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, was grown up and was unmarried. Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: What is the reason that the Master does not marry a woman to his son? Rav Yehuda said to him: Do I know from where I can find a woman to marry him? I am concerned about flawed lineage. Ulla said to him: Is that to say that we know where we come from? Can we be sure that our lineage is unflawed? Perhaps we are from those about whom it is written: “They have ravished the women in Zion, the maidens in the cities of Judah” (Lamentations 5:11). Perhaps we are descended from women ravished by gentiles. And if you would say that you are not concerned about that possibility, since you maintain that in the case of a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, perhaps we come from those about whom it is written: “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches” (Amos 6:4), and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in explanation of this verse: These are people who urinate naked before their couches. And Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this interpretation and said: If so, if this was their sin, is this what is written: “Therefore now shall they go captive at the head of them that go captive” (Amos 6:7)? Could it be that because they urinated naked before their couches that they go captive at the head of them that go captive? That act is admittedly distasteful, but it is not so severe a transgression to warrant such a punishment. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: These are people who eat and drink together, and attach their beds together, and exchange their wives with each other, and befoul their couches with semen that is not theirs. The Jewish people include the descendants of such people, who are full-fledged mamzerim. Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: If so, what shall we do? How can we clarify which families are of unflawed lineage? Ulla said to him: Go after the silence, like the way the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, examine: When two people quarrel with each other, they observe which of them becomes silent first. Then they say: This silent party is of finer lineage. Rav says: The silence of Babylonia is its lineage. In other words, this is an effective method of examining a person’s lineage in Babylonia as well. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav arrived at the house of the son of a vinegar strainer and examined them. What, is it not that he conducted an examination into their lineage? The Gemara answers: No, he conducted an examination into their silence. This is what Rav said to those conducting the examination: Examine whether they become silent when they quarrel or whether they do not become silent. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If you see two people feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them. In other words, there are grounds to suspect that the lineage of one of them is flawed. Consequently, that one is prevented by Heaven from joining the other through marriage, and that leads them to feud with each other. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If you see two families feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them, and that family is prevented by Heaven from joining the other. Rav Pappa the Elder says in the name of Rav: Babylonia is healthy with regard to lineage and clear of suspicion. Mishon is dead, meaning that all its inhabitants have flawed lineage. Media is sick, and Eilam is moribund. The Gemara clarifies: And what is the difference between sick and moribund? Most sick people recover to a healthy life, whereas most of those who are moribund are destined for death. Likewise, the majority of the residents of Media had unflawed lineage, while the majority of those living in Eilam had flawed lineage. After having determined that those from Babylonia are presumed to have unflawed lineage, the Gemara clarifies what the borders of Babylonia are with regard to this issue. Until where does the width of Babylonia extend? Rav said: Until the River Azak, which empties into the Euphrates. And Shmuel said: Until the River Yo’ani, which also empties into the Euphrates. The Gemara asks: Until where does the border extend upward, meaning northward, on the Tigris? Rav said: Until the places called Bagda and Avna. And Shmuel said: Until Mushekanei. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, isn’t Mushekanei included in Babylonia? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile, meaning it is like Pumbedita in central Babylonia, with regard to lineage? Rather, Shmuel meant: Until and including Mushekanei. The Gemara asks: How far does the border extend downward, meaning southward, on the Tigris? Rav Shmuel said: Until the city of Lower Appamya. The Gemara comments: There are two cities called Appamya, the upper one and the lower one. In terms of the lineage of their residents, one is unflawed and the other is flawed, and they are separated by a distance of a parasang [parsa]. And they are particular with regard to one another. The residents of the two cities avoid each other to the extent that they do not even loan each other fire, to prevent them from developing a closeness with each other. And your mnemonic to remember which is which is that the unfit one is that one that speaks the Mishon dialect. As stated above, Mishon is considered dead with regard to lineage. The Gemara further clarifies: How far does the border extend upward, meaning northward, on the Euphrates? Rav said: Until the fortress of Tulbaknei. And Shmuel said: Until the bridge over the Euphrates. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the crossing at Gizma. The Gemara relates: Abaye would curse, and some say it was Rav Yosef that would curse, one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as he held that Rav extended the border too far north. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: Why did he curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, but he did not curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? But the bridge over the Euphrates is further north than the fortress of Tulbaknei. Rather, he would curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and all the more so one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And if you wish, say: In fact, he cursed one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, but he did not curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the bridge over the Euphrates actually stood lower down, i.e., farther south. In their times the bridge was to the south of Tulbaknei, and Abaye agreed that it was in Babylonia. And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage. Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned. Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥanan ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira. Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥananel’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥananel. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before. The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete. In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times. The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there. Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia. The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli. The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said: Ah Lord God!” (Ezekiel 11:13). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse. One said it should be interpreted for good, and one said it should be interpreted for evil. How so? The one who says that it should be interpreted for good claims it is like that story involving the governor [de’istandera] of the province of Meishan, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. He sent a message to his father-in-law: From all those captives you have brought for yourself from your wars you have not sent us anyone to stand before us. Nebuchadnezzar wanted to send him captives from the Jews to serve his son-in-law. Pelatiah, son of Benaiah, said to Nebuchadnezzar: We, who are important, shall stand and serve before you here, and our slaves will go there, to your son-in-law. Nebuchadnezzar took his advice. And about him the prophet Ezekiel said: One who did this good for the Jewish people, i.e., Pelatiah ben Benaiah, who spared them this exile, should he die at half of his days? The one who says that the verse should be interpreted for evil cites the following verse, as it is written: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s House, which looked eastward; and behold, at the door of the gate five and twenty men; and I saw in the midst of them Jaazaniah the son of Azzur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people” (Ezekiel 11:1), and it is written: “And He brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s House, and, behold, at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16). The second verse is analyzed in light of the first verse, which states that Pelatiah ben Benaiah was among the twenty-five people: From the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,” don’t I know that their backs were toward the west, where the Temple was? What is the meaning when the verse states: “Their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”? These words hint at another matter, as the verse teaches that they exposed themselves from behind and discharged excrement toward the One above, in the direction of the Temple. And the prophet is saying: Shall he who did this evil in Israel die peacefully on his bed? The Gemara comments: It may be concluded that it was Shmuel who said this was for evil, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage. And even with regard to Mishon, they were not concerned due to slavery nor due to mamzer status. Rather, the priests who were there were not particular with regard to the prohibition against priests marrying divorced women. Consequently, Shmuel maintains that the only flaw of lineage in Mishon was that of ḥalalim, whereas the opinion that the verse was stated for good maintains that the some of the residents of Mishon were slaves. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that Shmuel said it was for good, and there is no contradiction, since Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated and he does not even require a bill of manumission. Shmuel cited a proof from that which is stated: “But every slave man that is bought for money” (Exodus 12:44). Does this apply only to a slave who is a man, and not to a woman slave? Rather, it means: The slave of a man, i.e., a slave whose master has authority and control over him, is called a slave, since he is the slave of a particular man. A slave whose master does not have authority over him, such as one who has been declared ownerless, is not called a slave but a freeman. The slaves who went to Mishon no longer had the status of slaves because their masters remained behind. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This mishna, which indicates that only the inhabitants of Babylonia have unflawed lineage, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: All lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The Gemara comments: Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Meḥoza, which is outside the borders of Babylonia as pertains to lineage. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in allowing him to do so? Is it because Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say all lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The halakha follows the opinion of the Rabbis, but the school of Rav Kahana did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Pappa did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Zevid did not teach like this. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, despite hearing of all these reports, Ameimar did not accept this halakha from him, because he had heard this halakha directly from Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, upon whom he relied. The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:5): Mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: They will not be pure. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But hasn’t it already been stated: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you” (Ezekiel 36:25)? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says: “From all your uncleanness, and from all your idols,” this emphasizes that God will purify people from these types of impurity, but not from mamzer status. Rabbi Yosei said to him: When it says: “Will I cleanse you,” at the end of the verse, you must say this means even from mamzer status.

§ The Gemara returns to the issue of lineage: Shmuel says in the name of a certain elder: A family in Babylonia has a presumptive status of unflawed lineage until it becomes known to you in what way it was rendered of flawed lineage. Conversely, a family from other lands has a presumptive status of flawed lineage until it becomes known to you in what way it was rendered unflawed. As for families in Eretz Yisrael, one who has a presumptive status of flawed lineage is of flawed lineage, whereas one who has presumptive status of unflawed lineage is of unflawed lineage. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: This matter itself is difficult: First, you said that a family that has a presumptive status of flawed lineage is of flawed lineage, indicating that a family with unspecified status is of unflawed lineage. And then you teach: A family that has a presumptive status of unflawed lineage is of unflawed lineage, indicating that a family with unspecified status is of flawed lineage. Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav: This is not difficult. Here, in the final clause, it is referring to marrying a woman to him, and the halakha is that a family with no presumptive status requires investigation before one of them marries. There, in the penultimate clause, it is referring to the court removing a woman from him. The husband is not forced to divorce her unless it has been proven that they may not remain married. Rav Yosef says: Anyone whose speech is Babylonian, i.e., anyone who speaks the Babylonian language with a Babylonian accent, is allowed to marry a woman without having his lineage examined. The presumption is that he is Babylonian, and the lineage of Babylonian families is unflawed. The Gemara comments: But nowadays, when there are swindlers who may speak with Babylonian accents in order to avoid scrutiny, we are concerned even about those who speak like Babylonians. The Gemara relates: The Sage Ze’eiri, a Babylonian, was avoiding Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was from Eretz Yisrael, since the latter kept saying to him: Marry my daughter. One day, when they were walking along the way, they arrived at a large puddle of water. Ze’eiri lifted Rabbi Yoḥanan upon his shoulders and carried him over the puddle out of respect. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Our Torah is fit and worthy of honor in your eyes, and yet our daughters are not fit? What is your reason for not wanting to marry my daughter? Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: If we say a reason not to marry my daughter is from that which we learned in a mishna (69a): There were ten categories of lineage among the Jews who ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, Israelites, as well as many of flawed lineage, and you are concerned about the mamzerim among those who live in Eretz Yisrael, is that to say that all of the priests, Levites, and Israelites ascended to Eretz Yisrael? Certainly, Jews of unflawed lineage remained in Babylonia. Just as there remained from these unflawed categories in Babylonia, there also remained individuals from these, the flawed categories. Therefore, marrying only Babylonians will not alleviate your concern. The Gemara comments: In fact, this statement of Rabbi Elazar escaped Rabbi Yoḥanan: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, and then he ascended. Accordingly, the people who remained in Babylonia were all of unflawed lineage. The Gemara relates another incident: Ulla arrived in Pumbedita to the house of Rav Yehuda. He observed that Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, was grown up and was unmarried. Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: What is the reason that the Master does not marry a woman to his son? Rav Yehuda said to him: Do I know from where I can find a woman to marry him? I am concerned about flawed lineage. Ulla said to him: Is that to say that we know where we come from? Can we be sure that our lineage is unflawed? Perhaps we are from those about whom it is written: “They have ravished the women in Zion, the maidens in the cities of Judah” (Lamentations 5:11). Perhaps we are descended from women ravished by gentiles. And if you would say that you are not concerned about that possibility, since you maintain that in the case of a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, perhaps we come from those about whom it is written: “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches” (Amos 6:4), and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in explanation of this verse: These are people who urinate naked before their couches. And Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this interpretation and said: If so, if this was their sin, is this what is written: “Therefore now shall they go captive at the head of them that go captive” (Amos 6:7)? Could it be that because they urinated naked before their couches that they go captive at the head of them that go captive? That act is admittedly distasteful, but it is not so severe a transgression to warrant such a punishment. Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: These are people who eat and drink together, and attach their beds together, and exchange their wives with each other, and befoul their couches with semen that is not theirs. The Jewish people include the descendants of such people, who are full-fledged mamzerim. Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: If so, what shall we do? How can we clarify which families are of unflawed lineage? Ulla said to him: Go after the silence, like the way the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, examine: When two people quarrel with each other, they observe which of them becomes silent first. Then they say: This silent party is of finer lineage. Rav says: The silence of Babylonia is its lineage. In other words, this is an effective method of examining a person’s lineage in Babylonia as well. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rav arrived at the house of the son of a vinegar strainer and examined them. What, is it not that he conducted an examination into their lineage? The Gemara answers: No, he conducted an examination into their silence. This is what Rav said to those conducting the examination: Examine whether they become silent when they quarrel or whether they do not become silent. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If you see two people feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them. In other words, there are grounds to suspect that the lineage of one of them is flawed. Consequently, that one is prevented by Heaven from joining the other through marriage, and that leads them to feud with each other. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If you see two families feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them, and that family is prevented by Heaven from joining the other. Rav Pappa the Elder says in the name of Rav: Babylonia is healthy with regard to lineage and clear of suspicion. Mishon is dead, meaning that all its inhabitants have flawed lineage. Media is sick, and Eilam is moribund. The Gemara clarifies: And what is the difference between sick and moribund? Most sick people recover to a healthy life, whereas most of those who are moribund are destined for death. Likewise, the majority of the residents of Media had unflawed lineage, while the majority of those living in Eilam had flawed lineage. After having determined that those from Babylonia are presumed to have unflawed lineage, the Gemara clarifies what the borders of Babylonia are with regard to this issue. Until where does the width of Babylonia extend? Rav said: Until the River Azak, which empties into the Euphrates. And Shmuel said: Until the River Yo’ani, which also empties into the Euphrates. The Gemara asks: Until where does the border extend upward, meaning northward, on the Tigris? Rav said: Until the places called Bagda and Avna. And Shmuel said: Until Mushekanei. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, isn’t Mushekanei included in Babylonia? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile, meaning it is like Pumbedita in central Babylonia, with regard to lineage? Rather, Shmuel meant: Until and including Mushekanei. The Gemara asks: How far does the border extend downward, meaning southward, on the Tigris? Rav Shmuel said: Until the city of Lower Appamya. The Gemara comments: There are two cities called Appamya, the upper one and the lower one. In terms of the lineage of their residents, one is unflawed and the other is flawed, and they are separated by a distance of a parasang [parsa]. And they are particular with regard to one another. The residents of the two cities avoid each other to the extent that they do not even loan each other fire, to prevent them from developing a closeness with each other. And your mnemonic to remember which is which is that the unfit one is that one that speaks the Mishon dialect. As stated above, Mishon is considered dead with regard to lineage. The Gemara further clarifies: How far does the border extend upward, meaning northward, on the Euphrates? Rav said: Until the fortress of Tulbaknei. And Shmuel said: Until the bridge over the Euphrates. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Until the crossing at Gizma. The Gemara relates: Abaye would curse, and some say it was Rav Yosef that would curse, one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as he held that Rav extended the border too far north. The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: Why did he curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, but he did not curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? But the bridge over the Euphrates is further north than the fortress of Tulbaknei. Rather, he would curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and all the more so one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And if you wish, say: In fact, he cursed one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rav, but he did not curse one who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the bridge over the Euphrates actually stood lower down, i.e., farther south. In their times the bridge was to the south of Tulbaknei, and Abaye agreed that it was in Babylonia. And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage. Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned. Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥanan ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira. Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥananel says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥananel’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥananel. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before. The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete. In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times. The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there. Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia. The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli. The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said: Ah Lord God!” (Ezekiel 11:13). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse. One said it should be interpreted for good, and one said it should be interpreted for evil. How so? The one who says that it should be interpreted for good claims it is like that story involving the governor [de’istandera] of the province of Meishan, who was the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar. He sent a message to his father-in-law: From all those captives you have brought for yourself from your wars you have not sent us anyone to stand before us. Nebuchadnezzar wanted to send him captives from the Jews to serve his son-in-law. Pelatiah, son of Benaiah, said to Nebuchadnezzar: We, who are important, shall stand and serve before you here, and our slaves will go there, to your son-in-law. Nebuchadnezzar took his advice. And about him the prophet Ezekiel said: One who did this good for the Jewish people, i.e., Pelatiah ben Benaiah, who spared them this exile, should he die at half of his days? The one who says that the verse should be interpreted for evil cites the following verse, as it is written: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s House, which looked eastward; and behold, at the door of the gate five and twenty men; and I saw in the midst of them Jaazaniah the son of Azzur, and Pelatiah the son of Benaiah, princes of the people” (Ezekiel 11:1), and it is written: “And He brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s House, and, behold, at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16). The second verse is analyzed in light of the first verse, which states that Pelatiah ben Benaiah was among the twenty-five people: From the fact that it is stated: “And their faces toward the east,” don’t I know that their backs were toward the west, where the Temple was? What is the meaning when the verse states: “Their backs toward the Temple of the Lord”? These words hint at another matter, as the verse teaches that they exposed themselves from behind and discharged excrement toward the One above, in the direction of the Temple. And the prophet is saying: Shall he who did this evil in Israel die peacefully on his bed? The Gemara comments: It may be concluded that it was Shmuel who said this was for evil, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage. And even with regard to Mishon, they were not concerned due to slavery nor due to mamzer status. Rather, the priests who were there were not particular with regard to the prohibition against priests marrying divorced women. Consequently, Shmuel maintains that the only flaw of lineage in Mishon was that of ḥalalim, whereas the opinion that the verse was stated for good maintains that the some of the residents of Mishon were slaves. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that Shmuel said it was for good, and there is no contradiction, since Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated and he does not even require a bill of manumission. Shmuel cited a proof from that which is stated: “But every slave man that is bought for money” (Exodus 12:44). Does this apply only to a slave who is a man, and not to a woman slave? Rather, it means: The slave of a man, i.e., a slave whose master has authority and control over him, is called a slave, since he is the slave of a particular man. A slave whose master does not have authority over him, such as one who has been declared ownerless, is not called a slave but a freeman. The slaves who went to Mishon no longer had the status of slaves because their masters remained behind. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This mishna, which indicates that only the inhabitants of Babylonia have unflawed lineage, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: All lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The Gemara comments: Ameimar permitted Rav Huna bar Natan to marry a woman from Meḥoza, which is outside the borders of Babylonia as pertains to lineage. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in allowing him to do so? Is it because Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say all lands retain a presumptive status of unflawed lineage. The halakha follows the opinion of the Rabbis, but the school of Rav Kahana did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Pappa did not teach like this, and the school of Rav Zevid did not teach like this. The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, despite hearing of all these reports, Ameimar did not accept this halakha from him, because he had heard this halakha directly from Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, upon whom he relied. The Sages taught (Tosefta 5:5): Mamzerim and Gibeonites will be pure in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Meir says: They will not be pure. Rabbi Yosei said to him: But hasn’t it already been stated: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you” (Ezekiel 36:25)? Rabbi Meir said to him: When it says: “From all your uncleanness, and from all your idols,” this emphasizes that God will purify people from these types of impurity, but not from mamzer status. Rabbi Yosei said to him: When it says: “Will I cleanse you,” at the end of the verse, you must say this means even from mamzer status.

The Gemara relates: Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host was the son of a convert, and he and Rav Beivai were quarreling. One said: I will perform the service of the city, i.e., I will be appointed to a position of authority, and one said: I will perform the service of the city. They came before Rav Yosef to decide between them. Rav Yosef said to them: We learned: “You shall set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose; one from among your brothers” (Deuteronomy 17:15). The repetition of the verb “set” in the verse [som tasim] indicates: All appointments that you appoint may be only from among your brothers. Therefore, a convert may not serve in any official position. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Yosef: And does this halakha apply even if the mother of the person in question is born Jewish? In other words, does this apply to one whose father is a convert? Rav Yosef said to him: If his mother is born Jewish, the words: “From among your brothers” are said about him. Therefore, now that it has been determined that this person’s mother was born Jewish and that he is fit to serve a public role, Rav Beivai, who is a great man in Torah learning, should oversee the matters of Heaven, i.e., the public issues that involve the performance of mitzvot; and the Master, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s host, should oversee the other matters of the city. Abaye said, as a moral of the story: Therefore, if one has a Torah scholar as a guest, let him host a person such as Rav Adda bar Ahava, who knows how to plead in his favor, as it was the argument of Rav Adda bar Ahava that led to his host’s appointment. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira would deal with converts and assign them to positions of authority. Similarly, Rabba bar Avuh would deal with them. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not establish even an appointee over measurements from them, as they extended the prohibition against appointing a convert as a king to include all positions of power. In Neharde’a, they would not establish even an appointee over irrigation of the city fields from them. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even the descendants of one who had signed as a witness in the Old Court of Tzippori does not need to have their lineage investigated. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: In that city, they would first examine witnesses and only afterward have them sign. Consequently, anyone who signed as a witness in Tzippori must certainly have been of unflawed lineage. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Even the descendants of one who was written in the army list of the Jewish king does not have their lineage investigated. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The reference is to one who was written in the list of the military troops of the House of David, who were all of pure lineage. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which it is derived? The phrase is: “Reckoned by lineage for service in war” (I Chronicles 7:40). The Gemara asks: And what is the reason for this requirement that they be of unflawed lineage? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is in order that their merit and the merit of their ancestors will help them in battle. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Zelek the Ammonite, one of David’s warriors (II Samuel 23:37); what, is it not indicated that he was a convert who came from Ammon? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Ammon, but he was born a Jew. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Uriah the Hittite (II Samuel 23:39); what, is it not indicated that he came from Heth? The Gemara rejects this: No, his name indicates only that he dwelled in Heth. The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there Ittai the Gittite (II Samuel 15:19)? And if you would say that so too his name indicates that he dwelled in Gath but was born a Jew, but doesn’t Rav Naḥman say, to explain how David could make use of the crown of the idol of Ammon in apparent violation of the prohibition against deriving benefit from idolatry: Ittai the Gittite came and nullified its status of an idol. The halakha is that only a gentile can nullify an idol, by doing something degrading to it. This indicates that Ittai the Gittite must have been a gentile. The Gemara again questions the statement that all of the soldiers in David’s army were of unflawed lineage. And further, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: David had four hundred youths in his camp, all sons of beautiful women, i.e., born to women captured in war, who were therefore gentiles, all of whom had their hair cut in the komei style or who grew their hair in a gentile hairstyle [belorit] on the back of their heads, and all of them sat in gold carts [bikroniyyot] and would march at the head of troops in David’s army; and these very ones were the strong men of the House of David, i.e., David would rely on their strength. This states that David’s army included men of flawed lineage. The Gemara answers: These four hundred youths did not fight in the battles, but rather they would go forth in front of the troops in order to frighten everyone.

The Gemara relates: Rav and Rav Yehuda were walking along the way, and a certain woman was walking ahead of them. Rav said to Rav Yehuda: Raise your feet and walk quickly away from Gehenna so that we do not remain secluded with her. Rav Yehuda said to him: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said that it is permitted in the case of men of fit morals? Rav said to him: Who says that I referred to men of fit morals such as you and me? Rav Yehuda responded: Rather, such as whom? Rav answered: Such as Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi and his colleagues, who have proven that they can withstand temptation (see 39b). All other people are not trusted in this matter. Rav says: The court flogs a man due to his being secluded with a woman. But a wife is not forbidden to her husband, and an unmarried woman is not prohibited from marrying a priest due to being secluded, as it cannot be stated definitively that the secluded pair engaged in sexual intercourse. Rav Ashi says: We stated the halakha that one is flogged due to being secluded only with an unmarried woman, but for being secluded with a married woman, one is not flogged. Why not? It is so that there should not be rumors spread concerning her children. If the secluded pair is flogged, everyone will assume that they engaged in intercourse, and people will consider her children to be mamzerim, whereas in fact they were flogged only for being secluded. The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra would even flog one who was secluded with a married woman, and he would proclaim the reason for the punishment. Rav Naḥman from Parhatya said to Rav Ashi: Let the Master also flog and proclaim the reason. Rav Ashi said to him: I am hesitant to do so, in case there are those who hear about this, i.e., the flogging, and do not hear about that, i.e., the reason for the flogging. Rav says: The court flogs one due to his being the subject of a bad rumor, meaning that not only is a person flogged when the facts have been ascertained, but even when he has only reportedly committed transgressions he may be flogged. As it is stated: “No, my sons, for it is no good report” (I Samuel 2:24). When Mar Zutra would flog a person for being the subject of a bad rumor, he would place the bridle of a donkey on the person’s shoulders and recite before him when administering lashes: “No, my sons, for it is no good report,” so that people would know why he was being flogged. Rabba says: If a woman’s husband is in town, there is no concern due to her being secluded with a man. People are afraid to sin with her, since they cannot be sure when her husband will return. Rav Yosef says: If there is an open entrance to the public domain there is no concern due to being secluded. The Gemara relates: Rav Beivai arrived at Rav Yosef’s house. After he wrapped his bread, i.e., ate his meal, he said to the members of the household: Remove the ladder from beneath Beivai, who was going to sleep in the upper story, so that he not be able to climb down, due to the prohibition of being secluded with Rav Yosef’s wife. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabba say: If her husband is in town, there is no concern due to her being secluded with a man? The Gemara answers: Rav Beivai is different, since Rav Yosef’s wife was his friend and she was familiar with him, and therefore there was more cause for concern. Rav Kahana says: If the men are located on the outside, i.e., in the outer room, and the women in the inside, i.e., in the inner room, there is no concern due to being secluded. Even if one of the men were to enter the inner room, he would be seen by the other men. By contrast, if there were men in the inside and women on the outside, there is a concern due to being secluded, since one of the men can claim that he is leaving and in fact join the women. The Gemara comments: The opposite was taught in a baraita, that if the men are on the outside and the women are inside there is concern due to being secluded, as one of the men might venture inside without being noticed, but if the men are inside and the women are outside, he knows that one of the other men might go out through the women’s quarters at any time, and therefore there is no concern due to being secluded. Abaye said: Now that Rav Kahana has said the halakha in this manner and a baraita teaches the opposite, we shall act stringently in both cases. Abaye would arrange rows of pitchers between the men and women, so that they would not be able to cross from one area to the other without making noise. Rava would arrange rows of reeds to prevent passage. Avin said: The wound [sakva], i.e., the vulnerable point, of the year is the Festival, since men and women would come together on these joyous occasions, and this would lead to sin.

§ The Gemara relates: Those captive women who were brought to Neharde’a, where they were redeemed, were brought up to the house of Rav Amram the Pious. They removed the ladder from before them to prevent men from climbing up after them to the attic where they were to sleep. When one of them passed by the entrance to the upper chamber, it was as though a light shone in the aperture due to her great beauty. Out of his desire for her, Rav Amram grabbed a ladder that ten men together could not lift, lifted it on his own and began climbing. When he was halfway up the ladder, he strengthened his legs against the sides of the ladder to stop himself from climbing further, raised his voice, and cried out: There is a fire in the house of Amram. Upon hearing this, the Sages came and found him in that position. They said to him: You have embarrassed us, since everyone sees what you had intended to do. Rav Amram said to them: It is better that you be shamed in Amram’s house in this world, and not be ashamed of him in the World-to-Come. He took an oath that his evil inclination should emerge from him, and an apparition similar to a pillar of fire emerged from him. He said to his evil inclination: See, as you are fire and I am mere flesh, and yet, I am still superior to you, as I was able to overcome you. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Meir would ridicule transgressors by saying it is easy to avoid temptation. One day, Satan appeared to him as a woman standing on the other side of the river. Since there was no ferry to cross the river, he took hold of a rope bridge and crossed the river. When he reached halfway across the rope bridge, the evil inclination left him and said to him: Were it not for the fact that they proclaim about you in heaven: Be careful with regard to Rabbi Meir and his Torah, I would have made your blood like two ma’a, i.e., completely worthless, since you would have fallen completely from your spiritual level. Rabbi Akiva would likewise ridicule transgressors. One day, Satan appeared to him as a woman at the top of a palm tree. Rabbi Akiva grabbed hold of the palm tree and began climbing. When he was halfway up the palm tree, the evil inclination left him and said to him: Were it not for the fact that they proclaim about you in heaven: Be careful with regard to Rabbi Akiva and his Torah, I would have made your blood like two ma’a. The Sage Peleimu had the habit to say every day: An arrow in the eye of Satan, mocking the temptations of the evil inclination. One day, it was the eve of Yom Kippur, and Satan appeared to him as a pauper who came and called him to the door, requesting alms. Peleimu brought out bread to him. Satan said to him: On a day like today, everyone is inside eating, and shall I stand outside and eat? Peleimu brought him inside and gave him bread. He said to him: On a day like today, everyone is sitting at the table, and shall I sit by myself? They brought him and sat him at the table. He was sitting and had covered himself with boils and pus, and he was doing repulsive things at the table. Peleimu said to the pauper: Sit properly and do not act in a revolting manner. Satan then said to him: Give me a cup. They gave him a cup. He coughed up his phlegm and spat it into the cup. They berated him for acting this way, at which point Satan pretended to sink down and die. They heard people around them saying: Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu fled and hid himself in the bathroom. Satan followed him and fell before him. Upon seeing that Peleimu was suffering, he revealed himself to him. Satan said to him: What is the reason that you spoke this way, provoking me by saying: An arrow in the eye of Satan? He replied: But what then should I say? Satan said to him: Let the Master, i.e., Peleimu, say: Let the Merciful One rebuke the Satan. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi was accustomed to say, whenever he would fall on his face in prayer: May the Merciful One save us from the evil inclination. One day his wife heard him saying this prayer. She said: After all, it has been several years since he has withdrawn from engaging in intercourse with me due to his advanced years. What is the reason that he says this prayer, as there is no concern that he will engage in sinful sexual behavior? One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself and repeatedly walked past him. He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ḥaruta, a well-known prostitute, returning from my day at work. He propositioned her. She said to him: Give me that pomegranate from the top of the tree as payment. He leapt up, went, and brought it to her, and they engaged in intercourse. When he came home, his wife was lighting a fire in the oven. He went and sat inside it. She said to him: What is this? He said to her: Such and such an incident occurred; he told her that he engaged in intercourse with a prostitute. She said to him: It was I. He paid no attention to her, thinking she was merely trying to comfort him, until she gave him signs that it was indeed she. He said to her: I, in any event, intended to transgress. The Gemara relates: All the days of that righteous man he would fast for the transgression he intended to commit, until he died by that death in his misery.

The Gemara explains the source that one who intended to transgress is punished even though he did not actually sin. As it is taught in a baraita concerning a husband who nullified the vow of his wife: “Her husband has made them null; and the Lord will forgive her” (Numbers 30:13). With regard to what case is the verse speaking? Why would the woman require forgiveness if her husband has nullified her vow? It is referring to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and her husband heard and nullified her vow. And she did not know that her husband had nullified her vow, and she drank wine and contracted impurity from a corpse, violating her presumed vow. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat pork, and kosher lamb came up in his hand, like this woman who intended to violate her vow but in fact did not, the Torah nevertheless says: She requires atonement and forgiveness, all the more so does one who intended to eat pork and pork came up in his hand require atonement and forgiveness. In a similar manner, you can say that the same lesson can be derived from the verse: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). When Rabbi Akiva came to this verse he would cry. He said: And if with regard to one who intended to eat permitted fat, and forbidden fat mistakenly came up in his hand, the Torah states: “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity,” all the more so is this true for one who intended to eat forbidden fat and forbidden fat came up in his hand. Isi ben Yehuda says with regard to the verse “Though he know it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity”: With regard to this matter all sufferers shall grieve, since the verse teaches that one is punished even for sinning unawares.

The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Abba arrived at the house of Rav Ḥisda, his son-in-law. He took his daughter’s daughter and placed her on his lap. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Doesn’t the Master think that she might already be betrothed? Rav Aḥa said to him: If that is true, you have transgressed the ruling of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was said by Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a minor, until she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so, as otherwise she might reject the designated husband and ultimately sin by committing adultery. Rav Ḥisda replied: The Master has likewise transgressed the words of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman, so how can you hold her on your lap? He said to him: I hold in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: All such actions are permitted for the sake of Heaven. In other words, if one is acting out of familial affection, without any element of licentiousness, they are permitted.

MISHNA: A bachelor may not act as a teacher of children, nor may a woman act as a teacher of children. Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who does not have a wife may not act as a teacher of children. Rabbi Yehuda says: A bachelor may not herd cattle, nor may two bachelors sleep with one covering, lest they transgress the prohibition against homosexual intercourse, but the Rabbis permit it. GEMARA: What is the reason that a bachelor may not teach children? If we say it is due to the children themselves, that it is suspected that he may engage in homosexual intercourse with them, but isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:10): They said to Rabbi Yehuda: Jews are not suspected of engaging in homosexual intercourse nor of engaging in intercourse with an animal. Rather, the reason is as follows: A bachelor may not be a teacher of children due to the mothers of the children, who come to the school from time to time, with whom he might sin. Similarly, a woman may not serve as a teacher to children because she may come to be secluded with the fathers of the children. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who does not have a wife may not act as a teacher of children. A dilemma was raised before the students in the study hall: Does Rabbi Elazar mean one who does not have a wife at all, or perhaps he is referring even to one who has a wife, in a circumstance where she is not residing with him? Come and hear: Even one who has a wife but she is not residing with him may not act as a teacher of children. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and indicates that his restriction applies even if the man is married. The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: A bachelor may not herd cattle, nor may two bachelors sleep with one covering. It is taught in the Tosefta (5:10): They said to Rabbi Yehuda: Jews are not suspected of engaging in homosexual intercourse nor of engaging in intercourse with an animal. MISHNA: Anyone who has professional dealings primarily with women may not be secluded with women. There is more of a concern that such a man might sin due to his familiarity with the women. And a person may not teach his son a trade that necessitates frequent interaction with women, for the same reason. With regard to teaching one’s son a trade, Rabbi Meir says: A person should always teach his son a clean and easy trade and pray for success to the One to Whom wealth and property belong, as ultimately there is no trade that does not include both poverty and wealth, since a person can become rich from any profession. Poverty does not come from a particular trade, nor does wealth come from a particular trade, but rather, all is in accordance with a person’s merit. Therefore, one should choose a clean and easy trade, and pray to God for success.

MISHNA: Anyone who has professional dealings primarily with women may not be secluded with women. There is more of a concern that such a man might sin due to his familiarity with the women. And a person may not teach his son a trade that necessitates frequent interaction with women, for the same reason. With regard to teaching one’s son a trade, Rabbi Meir says: A person should always teach his son a clean and easy trade and pray for success to the One to Whom wealth and property belong, as ultimately there is no trade that does not include both poverty and wealth, since a person can become rich from any profession. Poverty does not come from a particular trade, nor does wealth come from a particular trade, but rather, all is in accordance with a person’s merit. Therefore, one should choose a clean and easy trade, and pray to God for success. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Have you ever seen a beast or a bird that has a trade? And yet they earn their livelihood without anguish. But all these were created only to serve me, and I, a human being, was created to serve the One Who formed me. Is it not right that I should earn my livelihood without anguish? But I, i.e., humanity, have committed evil actions and have lost my livelihood. This is why people must work to earn a living. Abba Guryan of Tzadyan says in the name of Abba Gurya: A person may not teach his son the trades of a donkey driver, a camel driver, a pot maker, a sailor, a shepherd, or a storekeeper. The reason for all these is the same, as their trades are the trades of robbers; all of these professions involve a measure of dishonesty and are likely to lead to robbery. Rabbi Yehuda says in Abba Gurya’s name: Most donkey drivers are wicked, since they engage in deceit, and most camel drivers, who traverse dangerous places such as deserts, are of fit character, as they pray to God to protect them on their journeys. Most sailors are pious, since the great danger of the seas instills in them the fear of Heaven. The best of doctors is to Gehenna, and even the fittest of butchers is a partner of Amalek. Rabbi Nehorai says: I set aside all the trades in the world, and I teach my son only Torah, as a person partakes of its reward in this world and the principal reward remains for him in the World-to-Come, which is not true of other professions, whose rewards are only in this world. Furthermore, if a person comes to be ill, or old, or undergoes suffering, and is unable to be involved in his trade, behold, he dies in hunger. But with regard to the Torah it is not so, since one can study it under all circumstances. Rather, it preserves him from all evil and sin in his youth, and provides him with a future and hope in his old age. The mishna explains: With regard to his youth, what does it say about a Torah scholar? “But they that wait for the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). With regard to his old age, what does it say? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psalms 92:15), and it likewise states with regard to Abraham our forefather: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things” (Genesis 24:1). We found that Abraham our forefather fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because that Abraham listened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5), which indicates that Abraham observed all the mitzvot of his own accord and was rewarded in his old age as a result. GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to anyone who has professional dealings primarily with women, his practice and company are bad, and it is best to keep away from him. This category includes, for example, the smiths, and the carders, and the fixers of hand mills of women, and the peddlers of jewelry and perfume to women, and the weavers [gardiyyim], and the barbers, and the launderers, and the bloodletter, and the bathhouse attendant [ballan], and the tanner [burseki]. One may not appoint from among those who have these professions neither a king nor a High Priest. What is the reason for this? It is not because they are disqualified, since there is nothing wrong with these jobs, but because their trades are demeaning, and they would not be respected when appointed to a position of authority. The Sages taught: Ten things were stated with regard to a bloodletter: He walks on his side, i.e., in a haughty manner; and his spirit is arrogant; and he leans and sits, i.e., he does not sit down like others do but leans on an object in a conceited fashion; and he is stingy; and he is envious; and he eats much and discharges only a little; and he is suspected of engaging in intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, and of stealing, and of bloodshed in the course of his work. Bar Kappara taught: A person should always teach his son a clean and easy trade. The Gemara asks: What is such a profession? Rav Yehuda said: Needlework for embroidery is a clean and easy trade. It is taught in the Tosefta (5:12): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There is no trade that disappears from the world, since all occupations are needed, but fortunate is he who sees his parents in an elevated trade; woe is he who sees his parents in a lowly trade and follows them into their trade. Similarly, it is impossible for the world to continue without a perfumer and without a tanner. Fortunate is he whose trade is as a perfumer, and woe is he whose trade is as a tanner, who works with materials that have a foul smell. Likewise, it is impossible for the world to exist without males and without females, yet fortunate is he whose children are males, and woe is he whose children are females. Rabbi Meir says: A person should always teach his son a clean and easy trade, and he should request compassion from the One to Whom wealth and property belong, as poverty does not come from a trade, nor does wealth come from a trade; rather, they come from the One to Whom wealth belongs, as it is stated: “Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, says the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:8). The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Have you ever seen a beast or a bird that has a trade? It is taught in the Tosefta (5:13): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: I never saw a deer work as one who dries figs, nor a lion work as a porter, nor a fox work as a storekeeper. And yet they earn their livelihood without anguish. But all these were created only to serve me, and I, a human being, was created to serve the One Who formed me. If these, who were created only to serve me, earn their livelihood without anguish, then is it not right that I, who was created to serve the One Who formed me, should earn my livelihood without anguish? But I, i.e., humanity, have committed evil actions and have lost my livelihood, as it is stated: “Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have held back good from you” (Jeremiah 5:25). The mishna taught that Rabbi Nehorai says: I set aside all the trades and I teach my son only Torah. It is taught in the Tosefta (5:14): Rabbi Nehorai says: I set aside all the trades in the world, and I teach my son only Torah, as all other trades serve one only in the days of his youth, when he has enough strength to work, but in the days of his old age, behold, he is left to lie in hunger. But Torah is not like this: It serves a person in the time of his youth and provides him with a future and hope in the time of his old age. With regard to the time of his youth, what does it say about a Torah scholar? “But they that wait for the Lord shall renew their strength” (Isaiah 40:31). With regard to the time of his old age, what does it say? “They shall still bring forth fruit in old age, they shall be full of sap and richness” (Psalms 92:15).