Bava Metzia: Greatest Hits

The Gemara answers: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos: This oath is instituted by rabbinic law in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This oath, administered in the case of two people holding a garment, is an ordinance instituted by the Sages so that everyone will not go and seize the garment of another and say: It is mine.

This ruling is derived via an a fortiori inference from the halakha that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: As the admission of one’s own mouth should not carry greater weight than the testimony of witnesses. Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.

And in order not to exhibit insolence, this person wants to admit to the creditor with regard to all of the debt, and this fact that he denies owing him in part is because he reasons: If I admit to him with regard to all of the debt, he will lodge a claim against me with regard to all of it, and right now I do not have the money to pay. He was evading his creditor, and thought: I will continue doing so until I have money, and then I will pay him all of it. This rationalization enables one to falsely deny part of a claim. And therefore, the Merciful One states: Impose an oath on him, in order to ensure that he will admit to him with regard to all of the debt.

But in a case where the testimony of witnesses renders him liable to pay part of the debt, as one cannot say this explanation since this logic applies only when it is the debtor admitting to part of the claim, say that he has no intention to repay the debt at all, and he is completely dishonest and therefore his oath is worthless. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the defendant’s obligation to take an oath is derived by means of an a fortiori inference.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it? He can describe the mark after even a short glance and claim his item. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels, then when the eye of the one who purchases them has sufficiently seen them, what of it? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed. And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him. The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.

MISHNA: And until when is one who finds a lost item obligated to proclaim his find? He is obligated to do so until the moment that the neighbors will know of its existence; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will have time to go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and he will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one must proclaim his find until his neighbors will know of its existence. A tanna taught: One must proclaim his find until the neighbors of the lost item will know of its existence. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: Neighbors of the lost item? If we say that the reference is to neighbors of the owner of the lost item, he need not proclaim his find, as if the finder knows who lost the item, let him go and return it to him. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reference is to the neighbors of the place where the lost item was found. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, will ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. Apropos Rabbi Yehuda’s calculation of three days as the duration of a pilgrim’s travel from Jerusalem to his home, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Ta’anit 10a): On the third of the month of Marḥeshvan one starts to request rain by inserting the phrase: And grant dew and rain, in the blessing of the years, the ninth blessing of the Amida prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: One starts to request rain on the seventh of Marḥeshvan, which is fifteen days after the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, so that the last of those who are in Eretz Yisrael on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem can reach their homes beyond the Euphrates River before the onset of rain, which would make crossing the river more hazardous. Apparently, it takes fifteen days for those who came for the pilgrimage Festivals to return home, not three days. Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in tractate Ta’anit, Rabban Gamliel’s statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the First Temple period, which took fifteen days; whereas there, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the Second Temple period, which took three days. The Gemara explains the answer: During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous, as it is written with regard to them: “Judea and Israel were many, as the sand that is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing” (I Kings 4:20), we need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the wide distribution of the large population. During the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous, as it is written: “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty” (Ezra 2:64), we do not need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the limited distribution of the small population. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But isn’t it written: “So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Gibeonites, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities” (Ezra 2:70). The verse indicates that despite their limited numbers, the Jewish people dwelt in all the cities that they inhabited previously, and the distance to the far reaches of Eretz Yisrael was no shorter during the Second Temple period. Abaye continued: And since that is the reality, the opposite is reasonable. During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous and when everyone was structured in groups, and caravans could be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we do not need that much time to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, and three days suffice. By contrast, during the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous and when everyone was not structured in groups, and therefore, caravans could not be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we need that much time, i.e., fifteen days, to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael. Rava said: It is no different during the First Temple period and it is no different during the Second Temple period; the requisite travel time to the border was fifteen days, as the opinion of Rabban Gamliel indicates. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda calculated three days of travel to the border because the Sages did not wish to trouble the finder excessively in returning a lost item by requiring him to wait an extended amount of time.

§ The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta’anit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been obscured by the rising water.

The Gemara relates: There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Rav Sheshet resolved the matter from this baraita and ruled that the court does not authorize a relative to descend to the property of a captive. Rav Amram said to him: Perhaps we learned in the baraita that the courts do not allow a relative to descend and to sell the land? Rav Sheshet said mockingly to him, employing a similar style: Perhaps you are from Pumbedita, where people pass an elephant through the eye of a needle, i.e., they engage in specious reasoning. But doesn’t the juxtaposition between their wives and their children in the verse teach that the meaning is similar in both cases? Just as there, with regard to the wives, it means that they may not remarry at all, so too here, with regard to the sons, it means that they may not descend to the property at all.

GEMARA: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: When a thief returns an item that he stole, we do not require the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case of one who steals a lamb from the flock or a sela from the purse, he should return it to the place from which he stole it, and it is unnecessary to inform the owner; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One requires the knowledge of the owner for the item to be considered returned.

GEMARA: Granted, for all the other cases, the bailee is liable to pay, as he did not safeguard the money in the manner that bailees safeguard items. But if the bailee bound it in a cloth and slung it behind him, what more was he to do? Rava says that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The verse states: “And you shall bind up the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), from which it is derived: Although it is bound, in order to safeguard the money, it must be in your hand. And apropos that verse, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A person’s money should always be found in his possession. He should not invest all of his money, leaving him with no money available for expenditures, as it is stated: “And you shall bind up the money in your hand.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A person should always divide his money into three; he should bury one-third in the ground, and invest one-third in business [bifrakmatya], and keep one-third in his possession. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Blessing is found only in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses” (Deuteronomy 28:8), where the grain is concealed. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Blessing is found only in a matter over which the eye has no dominion, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.” The Sages taught: One who goes to measure the grain on his threshing floor recites: May it be Your will, O Lord, our God, that You send blessing upon the product of our hands. If one began to measure the grain he says: Blessed is He Who sends blessing upon this pile of grain. If one measured and afterward recited this blessing, this is a prayer made in vain, because blessing is found neither in a matter that is weighed, nor in a matter that is measured, nor in a matter that is counted. Rather, it is found in a matter concealed from the eye, as it is stated: “The Lord will command blessing with you in your storehouses.”

This is the principle: With regard to those who exchange all forms of movable property, each acquires the property of the other, i.e., the moment that one of the parties to the exchange takes possession of the item that he is acquiring, e.g., by means of pulling, the other party acquires the item from the first party. How so? If the buyer pulled produce from the seller, but the buyer did not yet give the seller their value in money, he cannot renege on the transaction, but if the buyer gave the seller money but did not yet pull produce from him, he can renege on the transaction, as the transaction is not yet complete. But with regard to the latter case, the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, i.e., that of the Tower of Babel, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. Just as the people of those generations were not punished by an earthly court but were subjected to divine punishment, so too, although no earthly court can compel the person who reneged to complete the transaction, punishment will be exacted at the hand of Heaven for any damage that he caused. Rabbi Shimon says: Anyone who has the money in his possession has the advantage. The Sages said it is only with regard to the seller that payment of money does not effect a transaction, so that if the buyer paid for the item and did not yet take possession of the purchase item, the seller can renege on the sale and return the money. By contrast, once the buyer paid for the item he cannot renege on his decision and demand return of his money, even if he did not yet take possession of the purchase item. GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins, consistent with the mishna. Rabbi Shimon said to him: My teacher, you taught us in your youth, in the first version of the mishna: When one party takes possession of the silver coins, the other party acquires the gold coins, and do you then teach us in your old age: When one party takes possession of the gold coins, the other party acquires the silver coins?

§ The mishna teaches with regard to one who reneges on a transaction after the money was paid: But the Sages said: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the generation of the dispersion, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. It was stated that there is an amoraic dispute. Abaye said that we inform one who seeks to renege on a transaction: Be aware that this is the punishment of one who does not stand by his statement. Rava said that we curse him with that statement. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye said that we inform him, as it is written: “Nor curse a ruler among your people” (Exodus 22:27), from which it is derived that it is prohibited to curse a ruler or any other member of the Jewish people. Rava said that we curse him, and the prohibition against cursing is not a concern, as it is written: “Among your people,” from which it is derived that the prohibition applies only with regard to one who performs an action befitting your people, not one who reneges on a transaction after the money is paid.

MISHNA: Just as there is a prohibition against exploitation [ona’a] in buying and selling, so is there ona’a in statements, i.e., verbal mistreatment. The mishna proceeds to cite examples of verbal mistreatment. One may not say to a seller: For how much are you selling this item, if he does not wish to purchase it. He thereby upsets the seller when the deal fails to materialize. The mishna lists other examples: If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deeds of your ancestors, as it is stated: “And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him” (Exodus 22:20). GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: “And you shall not mistreat [tonu] one man his colleague; and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 25:17). The tanna explains: The verse is speaking with regard to verbal mistreatment. The baraita proceeds: Do you say that it is speaking of verbal mistreatment [be’ona’at devarim], or perhaps it is speaking only with regard to monetary exploitation [be’ona’at mammon]? When it says in a previous verse: “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand, you shall not exploit [tonu] his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), monetary exploitation is explicitly stated. How then do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall not mistreat one man his colleague”? It is with regard to verbal mistreatment. How so? If one is a penitent, another may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, another may not say to him: Remember the deed of your ancestors. If one is a convert and he came to study Torah, one may not say to him: Does the mouth that ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [tereifot], and repugnant creatures, and creeping animals, comes to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Almighty? If torments are afflicting a person, if illnesses are afflicting him, or if he is burying his children, one may not speak to him in the manner that the friends of Job spoke to him: “Is not your fear of God your confidence, and your hope the integrity of your ways? Remember, I beseech you, whoever perished, being innocent?” (Job 4:6–7). Certainly you sinned, as otherwise you would not have suffered misfortune. Likewise, if donkey drivers are asking to purchase grain from someone, and he has none, he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold grain at all. He thereby causes the donkey drivers and the would-be seller anguish. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even cast his eyes on the merchandise for sale, creating the impression that he is interested, at a time when he does not have money to purchase it. Verbal mistreatment is not typically obvious, and it is difficult to ascertain the intent of the offender, as the matter is given to the heart of each individual, as only he knows what his intention was when he spoke. And with regard to any matter given to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God” (Leviticus 25:17), as God is privy to the intent of the heart. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is the transgression of verbal mistreatment than the transgression of monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, verbal mistreatment, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” But with regard to that, monetary exploitation, it is not stated: “And you shall fear your God.” And Rabbi Elazar said this explanation: This, verbal mistreatment, affects one’s body; but that, monetary exploitation, affects one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, monetary exploitation, is given to restitution; but that, verbal mistreatment, is not given to restitution. The Gemara relates that the tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that after the humiliated person blushes, the red leaves his face and pallor comes in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, with regard to what mitzva are they particularly vigilant? Rav Dimi said to him: They are vigilant in refraining from humiliating others, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone descends to Gehenna? Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna ultimately ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls another a derogatory name. The Gemara asks with regard to one who calls another a derogatory name: That is identical to one who shames him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: Although the victim grew accustomed to being called that name in place of his name, and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable for a person to engage in intercourse with a woman whose married status is uncertain and not humiliate another in public. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is from that which Rava interpreted, as Rava interpreted: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when I limped they rejoiced and gathered…they tore and did not cease [damu]” (Psalms 35:15)? The term “damu” can also be understood as a reference to blood. Concerning the fasting he undertook to atone for his sin with Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapters 11–12), David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that if my tormenters were to tear my flesh, my blood [dami] would not flow to the ground, due to excessive fasting. And moreover, they torment me to the extent that even at the time when they are engaged in the public study of the halakhot of leprous sores and tents in which there is a corpse, i.e., halakhic matters that have no connection to my sin, they say to me: David, one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, his death is effected with what form of execution? And I say to them: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman before witnesses and with forewarning, his death is by strangulation, but he still has a share in the World-to-Come. But one who humiliates another in public has no share in the World-to-Come. The transgression of you, who humiliate me, is more severe than my transgression. And Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says; and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says; and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more comfortable for a person to cast himself into a fiery furnace, than to humiliate another in public to avoid being cast into the furnace. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah. When she was taken out to be burned, she did not reveal that she was pregnant with Judah’s child. Rather, she left the decision to him, to avoid humiliating him in public, as it is written: “And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong. And she said: Examine these, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff?” (Genesis 38:24–25). § Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat each man his colleague [amito]” (Leviticus 25:17)? The word amito is interpreted as a contraction of im ito, meaning: One who is with him. With one who is with you in observance of Torah and mitzvot, you shall not mistreat him. Rav says: A person must always be careful about mistreatment of his wife. Since her tear is easily elicited, punishment for her mistreatment is immediate. Rabbi Elazar says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed the gates of prayer were locked, and prayer is not accepted as it once was, as it is stated in lament of the Temple’s destruction: “Though I plead and call out, He shuts out my prayer” (Lamentations 3:8). Yet, despite the fact that the gates of prayer were locked with the destruction of the Temple, the gates of tears were not locked, and one who cries before God may rest assured that his prayers will be answered, as it is stated: “Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my pleading, keep not silence at my tears” (Psalms 39:13). And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehenna, as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (I Kings 21:25). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a popular proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her and consult with her? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her counsel in household matters. The Gemara presents another version of this distinction: This statement of Rav maintains that one should not follow her counsel in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel in general matters. Rav Ḥisda says: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment, as it is stated: “And behold, the Lord stood upon a wall built with a plumb line, and a plumb line in His hand” (Amos 7:7). God stands with the scales of justice in His hand to determine if one has been subjected to injustice. Rabbi Elazar says: In response to all transgressions, God punishes the perpetrator by means of an agent, except for mistreatment [ona’a], as it is stated: “And a plumb line [anakh] in His hand.” The term for mistreatment and the term for plumb line are spelled in a similar manner, indicating that God Himself inflicts retribution. Rabbi Abbahu says: There are three sins before whose transgressors the curtain [hapargod] between the world and the Divine Presence is not locked; their sins reach the Divine Presence. They are: Verbal mistreatment, robbery, and idol worship. Mistreatment, as it is stated: “And a plumb line in His hand”; robbery, as it is stated: “Violence and robbery are heard in her, they are before Me continually” (Jeremiah 6:7); idol worship, as it is stated: “A people that angers Me before Me continually; that sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense upon bricks” (Isaiah 65:3). Apropos the topic of how a man should approach his household, Rav Yehuda says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as discord is found in a person’s house only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “He makes your borders peace; He gives you plenty with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If there is the finest wheat in your house, there will be peace there. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: When the barley is emptied from the jug, quarrel knocks and enters the house. And Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says: A person must always be careful about ensuring that there is grain inside his house, as the Jewish people were characterized as poor only over matters of grain, as it is stated: “And it was, if Israel sowed, and Midian and the children of the east ascended” (Judges 6:3); and it is written: “And they encamped against them and they destroyed the crops of the land” (Judges 6:4); and it is further written: “And Israel was greatly impoverished due to Midian” (Judges 6:6). And Rabbi Ḥelbo says: A person must always be careful about sustaining the honor of his wife, as blessing is found in a person’s house only because of his wife, as it is stated in allusion to this: “And he dealt well with Abram for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen” (Genesis 12:16). And that is what Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza, where he lived: Honor your wives, so that you will become rich. § Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven. And this is known as the oven of akhnai. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of akhnai, a snake, in this context? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is characterized in that manner due to the fact that the Rabbis surrounded it with their statements like this snake, which often forms a coil when at rest, and deemed it impure. The Sages taught: On that day, when they discussed this matter, Rabbi Eliezer answered all possible answers in the world to support his opinion, but the Rabbis did not accept his explanations from him. After failing to convince the Rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, this carob tree will prove it. The carob tree was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits. The Rabbis said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from the carob tree. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the stream will prove it. The water in the stream turned backward and began flowing in the opposite direction. They said to him: One does not cite halakhic proof from a stream. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, the walls of the study hall will prove it. The walls of the study hall leaned inward and began to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded the walls and said to them: If Torah scholars are contending with each other in matters of halakha, what is the nature of your involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls did not fall because of the deference due Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of the deference due Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me. The Sages said: On that day, the Sages brought all the ritually pure items deemed pure by the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the oven and burned them in fire, and the Sages reached a consensus in his regard and ostracized him. And the Sages said: Who will go and inform him of his ostracism? Rabbi Akiva, his beloved disciple, said to them: I will go, lest an unseemly person go and inform him in a callous and offensive manner, and he would thereby destroy the entire world. What did Rabbi Akiva do? He wore black and wrapped himself in black, as an expression of mourning and pain, and sat before Rabbi Eliezer at a distance of four cubits, which is the distance that one must maintain from an ostracized individual. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, what is different about today from other days, that you comport yourself in this manner? Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, it appears to me that your colleagues are distancing themselves from you. He employed euphemism, as actually they distanced Rabbi Eliezer from them. Rabbi Eliezer too, rent his garments and removed his shoes, as is the custom of an ostracized person, and he dropped from his seat and sat upon the ground. The Gemara relates: His eyes shed tears, and as a result the entire world was afflicted: One-third of its olives were afflicted, and one-third of its wheat, and one-third of its barley. And some say that even dough kneaded in a woman’s hands spoiled. The Sages taught: There was great anger on that day, as any place that Rabbi Eliezer fixed his gaze was burned. And even Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at Yavne, the head of the Sages who were responsible for the decision to ostracize Rabbi Eliezer, was coming on a boat at the time, and a large wave swelled over him and threatened to drown him. Rabban Gamliel said: It seems to me that this is only for the sake of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, as God punishes those who mistreat others. Rabban Gamliel stood on his feet and said: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that neither was it for my honor that I acted when ostracizing him, nor was it for the honor of the house of my father that I acted; rather, it was for Your honor, so that disputes will not proliferate in Israel. In response, the sea calmed from its raging. The Gemara further relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. From that incident forward, she would not allow Rabbi Eliezer to lower his head and recite the taḥanun prayer, which includes supplication and entreaties. She feared that were her husband to bemoan his fate and pray at that moment, her brother would be punished. A certain day was around the day of the New Moon, and she inadvertently substituted a full thirty-day month for a deficient twenty-nine-day month, i.e., she thought that it was the New Moon, when one does not lower his head in supplication, but it was not. Some say that a pauper came and stood at the door, and she took bread out to him. The result was that she left her husband momentarily unsupervised. When she returned, she found him and saw that he had lowered his head in prayer. She said to him: Arise, you already killed my brother. Meanwhile, the sound of a shofar emerged from the house of Rabban Gamliel to announce that the Nasi had died. Rabbi Eliezer said to her: From where did you know that your brother would die? She said to him: This is the tradition that I received from the house of the father of my father: All the gates of Heaven are apt to be locked, except for the gates of prayer for victims of verbal mistreatment. § The Sages taught: One who verbally mistreats the convert violates three prohibitions, and one who oppresses him in other ways violates two.

§ The Sages taught: One who verbally mistreats the convert violates three prohibitions, and one who oppresses him in other ways violates two. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to verbal mistreatment, that three prohibitions are written concerning it: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert” (Exodus 22:20); “And when a convert lives in your land, you shall not mistreat him” (Leviticus 19:33); “And you shall not mistreat, each man his colleague” (Leviticus 25:17), and a convert is included in the category of colleague? With regard to one who also oppresses a convert as well, three prohibitions are written: “And you shall neither mistreat a convert, nor oppress him” (Exodus 22:20); “And you shall not oppress a convert (Exodus 23:9); “And you shall not be to him like a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). This last prohibition is a general prohibition, in which converts are included. Consequently, it is not correct that one who oppresses a convert violates only two prohibitions. Rather, both this one, who verbally mistreats a convert, and that one, who oppresses him, violate three prohibitions. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: For what reason did the Torah issue warnings in thirty-six places, and some say in forty-six places, with regard to causing any distress to a convert? It is due to the fact that a convert’s inclination is evil, i.e., he is prone to return to his previous way of living. What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall not mistreat a convert nor oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:20)? We learned in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: A defect that is in you, do not mention it in another. Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst. And this explains the adage that people say: One who has a person hanged in his family [bidyotkei], does not say to another member of his household: Hang a fish for me, as the mention of hanging is demeaning for that family.

§ Rava said: Why do I need it to be that the Merciful One writes a prohibition with regard to interest, a prohibition with regard to robbery (see Leviticus 19:13), and a prohibition with regard to exploitation (see Leviticus 25:14), a transaction where one of the parties overcharged or underpaid? There appears to be one principle underlying all three prohibitions: One must not take possession of another’s money in illegitimate ways. The Gemara explains: They are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to interest, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it because it is a prohibition with a novel element that does not appear in other halakhot. This novel element is that the Merciful One prohibited a loan with interest even for the borrower. With regard to the two other prohibitions, there is a prohibition against taking another’s money, but there is no prohibition for the victim, who has his money taken. And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to robbery, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps robbery is prohibited only due to the fact that it is an action taken against the will of the victim. But in the cases of exploitation and interest, where there is an element of consent, one would say they are not prohibited. And had the Merciful One written the prohibition only with regard to exploitation, one could not have derived the other prohibitions from it, as perhaps exploitation is prohibited only due to the fact that the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore cannot waive repayment. In the cases of interest and robbery, the borrower and the victim, respectively, are aware that their money was taken and waiving repayment is possible, so perhaps those actions are is not prohibited. The Gemara suggests: Although no one of these prohibitions can be derived from one of the other prohibitions, perhaps one of them can be derived from the other two. The Gemara clarifies: Which prohibition will you derive from the other two? Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to interest, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and exploitation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are transgressed without the consent of the victim. Will you say the same with regard to interest, which the borrower gives with his consent, as he agrees to accept the loan under those conditions? The Gemara suggests: Let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to exploitation, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, robbery and interest. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that they are not transgressed in the typical manner of buying and selling. Will you say the same with regard to exploitation, which is transgressed in the context of typical buying and selling? Rather, let the Merciful One not write the prohibition with regard to robbery, and instead derive that prohibition from these two, interest and exploitation. As what refutation will you offer? If you say: What is notable about interest? It is notable in that the prohibition of interest contains a novel element; the case of exploitation will prove that a novel element is not a factor, as the prohibition against exploitation contains no novel element. If you say, what is notable about exploitation? It is notable in that in this case, the victim does not know that he was the victim of exploitation and therefore he cannot waive repayment; the case of interest will prove that the inability to waive repayment is not a factor, as the borrower is aware of the interest and able to waive repayment. The Gemara comments: And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case, interest, is not like the aspect of that case, exploitation, and the aspect of that case, exploitation, is not like the aspect of this case, interest. Their common denominator is that one robs another of money, i.e., takes money from another that is not due to him. I will also bring the prohibition against robbery, which shares that common denominator, and derive it from the other two prohibitions. The Sages said: Indeed, the prohibition against robbery is superfluous. But if the prohibition against robbery can be derived from the prohibitions against interest and exploitation, why do I need the prohibition written in the Torah with regard to robbery? The Gemara answers: That verse is not written to prohibit a standard case of robbery; rather, it serves to prohibit the action of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer. In that case, unlike robbery, the employer does not take money from the laborer; he merely fails to pay him his wages. The Gemara challenges: With regard to one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer, it is explicitly written: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and destitute” (Deuteronomy 24:14). There is no need to derive this prohibition from the verse concerning robbery. The Gemara answers: It is written so that withholding the wages of a hired laborer always involves violating two prohibitions. The Gemara asks: But let us interpret the verse concerning robbery as prohibiting interest or exploitation, and say that it is written so that these prohibitions always involve violating two prohibitions. The Gemara answers: The prohibition against robbery is applied to the case of withholding the wages of a hired laborer because it is a matter derived from its context, and this prohibition is written in the context of the matter of a hired laborer: “You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him, and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13). The Gemara asks: Why do I need the prohibition: “You shall not steal” (Leviticus 19:11), that the Merciful One wrote? This is yet another prohibition against taking money by illegitimate means, and it could be derived from the other prohibitions mentioned previously. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the Merciful One to write that prohibition for that which is taught in a baraita: “You shall not steal” applies in all circumstances, even if you do so only in order to aggravate the victim; “you shall not steal” applies in all circumstances, even if you do so in order to pay the double payment as a gift to the person from whom you stole. Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One wrote with regard to weights: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume” (Leviticus 19:35)? It is merely another form of robbery. Rav Ashi said to him: It is referring to a seller who buries his weights in salt, in order to lighten them. Rav Yeimar said: That is the same as full-fledged robbery; therefore, it should not require a separate derivation. Rav Ashi answered: It is written to establish that he violates the prohibition from the moment of the act of burying them. He violates the prohibition even before he actually deceives a buyer with the buried weights. The Sages taught: The verse states: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume [uvamesura]” (Leviticus 19:35). “In measure”; this is referring to the measurement of land, e.g., this means that in a case where two people are dividing their jointly owned field, one may not measure the land to be given to one during the summer and measure the land to be given to the other during the rainy season, because the length of the measuring cord is affected by the weather conditions. “In weight”; this is referring to the fact that he may not bury his measuring weights in salt. And “in volume”; this teaches that one may not froth the liquid one is selling, creating the impression that there is more liquid in the vessel than there actually is. The Gemara adds: And are the following matters not inferred a fortiori: And if with regard to the mesura volume, which equals one thirty-third of a log, the Torah was fastidious concerning it that one may not deceive another, it can be inferred a fortiori that with regard to a hin, which equals twelve log, and a half-hin, and a third-hin, and a quarter-hin, and a log, and a half-log, and a quarter-log, which are all much larger volumes, that one may not deceive another.

§ Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37–38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39–41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35–36)? Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts. The Gemara relates: Ravina happened to come to Sura on the Euphrates. Rav Ḥanina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of creeping animals: “Do not make yourselves detestable with all the creeping animals that swarm…for I am the Lord Who brings you up from the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 11:43–45)? Ravina said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who intermingles the innards of non-kosher fish with the innards of kosher fish and sells them to a Jew, who is unable to distinguish between them. Rav Ḥanina said to him: I was not asking about the very mention of the exodus. Rather, I was asking about the term “Who brings you up” mentioned in that verse; that is what is difficult for me. What is different here, that the Merciful One wrote: “Who brings you up from the land of Egypt,” as opposed to the other three instances cited by Rava where the exodus is mentioned in the context of mitzvot and prohibitions, where it is written: “Who brought you out”? Ravina said to him: It is to teach as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Had I brought the Jewish people up from Egypt only for this matter, so that they would not become impure by consuming creeping animals, it would be sufficient for Me, as observance of this mitzva elevates their spiritual stature. Rav Ḥanina said to him: And is the reward for abstaining from consuming creeping animals greater than the reward for observing the halakhot with regard to interest and ritual fringes and weights? Let the Merciful One write: Who brings you up, in the context of those mitzvot as well. Ravina said to him: Even though their reward is not greater, it is more repulsive for Jews to eat creeping animals. Avoiding those animals brings them up, in the sense that it is praiseworthy and enhances the transcendent nature of the Jews.

The Gemara relates: There were these two Samaritans who entered into a joint venture with each other. One of them went and divided the money without the knowledge of the other. They came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the plaintiff: What difference is there, meaning: What did you lose? This is what Rav Naḥman said: Money is considered as though it were already divided. It is not viewed as a single sum. The next year these same two purchased wine together, and the other one arose and divided the wine without the knowledge of the other. And again, they came for judgment before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said to the defendant: Who divided it for you? You did not act properly since you did not get your partner’s permission to divide the wine. The Samaritan said to him: I see that the Master pursues me in order to harass me, since last year, when we came with what appears to be essentially the same case, you gave a different ruling in favor of the other. Rav Pappa said: In a case like this it is certainly necessary to inform the litigant of the reasons for the decision. Although a judge is not always obligated to explain the reasons for his decision to the litigants, in a case like this, where there is room for suspicion, he must. Rav Pappa explained: Last year, when the other individual divided money, did he take the good coins and leave the deficient ones? The Samaritan said to him: No, he simply divided the money without any particular consideration, and that was acceptable, as there is no difference between one coin and another. Rav Pappa said to him: With regard to wine, everyone knows that there is wine that is sweet and there is wine that is not sweet, so it is not equitable to simply divide the barrels evenly. Therefore, I ruled that you were not entitled to divide the wine without your partner’s knowledge.

Rabba said to Rav Yosef: When we are entrusted with this money belonging to orphans, what do we do with it? What is the halakhically appropriate way to manage these funds on behalf of the orphans so that they do not squander or lose their inheritance? Rav Yosef said to him: We set up a special court that holds the money for them, and we instruct the court to give it to them dinar by dinar, according to their needs. Rabba said to him: But if the estate is managed in that manner, the principal, meaning the estate itself, will be depleted, and therefore the court will not be acting as suitable guardians for the orphans, as they will not be properly administering their estate. Rav Yosef said to him: What does the Master do in such a case? Rabba said to him: We look for a man who has scraps of gold, and we purchase the gold from him and then we give it back to him in a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss. The Gemara explains what Rabba says: We specifically buy scraps of gold, but we do not buy a specific item, meaning a finished gold item, as perhaps it is a deposit in the possession of the one holding it and the owner will come and provide distinguishing marks and take it, and then the orphans will suffer a loss. Rav Ashi said: This works out well if a man is found who has scraps of gold. But if no man is found who has scraps of gold, shall the money of the orphans be depleted? There is a possibility that the extra precaution taken to avoid the appearance of interest may lead to a loss for the orphans. Rather, Rav Ashi said: We look for a man whose properties are quiet, meaning that there is no claim disputing his ownership of them, and who is a trustworthy individual who listens to and obeys the laws of the Torah and is not subject to excommunication by the Sages, meaning that he is known as one who obeys the court’s instructions willingly without having to be coerced, and we give him this money in court as a joint business venture with terms that are close to profit and far from loss, and in this way the orphans’ money can be invested in a safe and profitable manner.

MISHNA: One may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, in which the terms of the transaction dictate that the one accepting the item takes upon himself complete responsibility to repay its value in the event of depreciation or loss, but receives only part of the profit. This is because it is a loan, as the principal is fixed and always returned to the owner, and any additional sum the owner receives is interest. But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, as there is no prohibition of interest in transactions with them. And one may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], one may borrow money from him with interest and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. Also, a Jew may serve as a middleman and lend a gentile’s money to another Jew with the knowledge of the gentile, but not with the knowledge of a Jew, i.e., the middleman himself, as the Gemara will explain.

GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a guaranteed investment is considered a loan with interest, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient, i.e., the recipient is viewed as its owner? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bekhorot 16a): In the case of one who accepts from gentiles an animal as a guaranteed investment, the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. This exemption apparently proves that the sheep still legally belong to the gentile owner. Abaye said: This is not difficult. That case, referring to the mishna in Bekhorot, is where the gentile owner of the sheep accepts upon himself the responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation in the market value, and that is why the sheep are considered to still belong to him. And this case, referring to the mishna here, is where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. Therefore, the guaranteed investment stands in the possession of the recipient. Rava said to Abaye: If the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, can you call it a guaranteed investment? This case is not a guaranteed investment, as the owner is not guaranteed to receive what he had given, but rather it is a type of joint business venture that is permitted between two Jews. Rava continues: And furthermore, even if one will grant that this arrangement can be called a guaranteed investment, there is another difficulty. Instead of the tanna teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: But one may accept a guaranteed investment from gentiles, let the tanna distinguish within the case itself, that of accepting a guaranteed investment from a Jew. He should have taught: In what case is this statement, i.e., that one may not accept from a Jew sheep to raise or other items to care for as a guaranteed investment, said? It is said in a case when the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, but if the owner accepted upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation, one may well enter into such an arrangement. Rather, Rava rejected this explanation and said: Both this case in the mishna here and that case with regard to the firstborn animal are discussing a situation where the owner did not accept upon himself responsibility for losses due to an accident or depreciation. And with regard to the firstborn, this is the reason that the offspring are exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn: Since, if for some reason the recipient does not give the money due to the gentile, the gentile will come and seize the animal, and if he does not find the animal he will seize the offspring; this means that the hand of a gentile is in the middle, i.e., the gentile has some degree of ownership of the bodies of the offspring. And there is a halakha: In every case where the hand of a gentile is in the middle, the animal is exempt from the halakhot of a firstborn. By contrast, in the case of the mishna concerning the halakhot of interest, the animal is entirely in the possession of the recipient. § Apropos the discussion concerning the halakhot of interest, the Gemara cites several aggadic statements on the subject. The verse states: “He who augments his substance by interest [beneshekh] and increase [vetarbit] gathers it for him who has pity on the poor” (Proverbs 28:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “him who has pity on the poor”? How does this money ultimately reach someone who has pity on the poor? Rav said: This is referring to one such as King Shapur, for ultimately the money will reach the king, who provides for the poor from the possessions of the one who lends with interest. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Huna said to me that this verse is necessary only to state that even interest that a Jew took from a gentile will ultimately reach the government treasury, and the one who took it will not be successful. Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman: The verse states: “Unto a gentile tashikh” (Deuteronomy 23:21), which indicates that it is permitted for a Jew to take interest from a gentile, as what is the meaning of “tashikh”? Doesn’t it mean the same as tishokh, take interest, thereby teaching that one may take interest from a gentile? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, it means to pay interest, meaning that you must pay him interest. The Gemara asks: Is it not sufficient without this? In other words, can the verse actually require Jews to borrow money from a gentile and to pay him interest? This cannot be. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that borrowing money with interest is a mitzva; rather, the verse mentions paying interest to a gentile in order to exclude your brother, to teach that although one may pay interest to a gentile, one may not pay interest to a Jew. The Gemara challenges this explanation of the verse: The prohibition against paying interest to your brother is written explicitly in the continuation of that same verse in Deuteronomy: “Unto your brother you shall not lend with interest.” Consequently, there is no need to learn this halakha from an inference. The Gemara responds: It is necessary in order to teach that if one pays interest to a Jew he violates both the positive mitzva to pay interest to a gentile but not to a Jew, and the prohibition against paying interest to a Jew. Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman based on another difficulty in the mishna, which teaches: One may borrow money from them and one may lend money to them with interest. And similarly, with regard to a ger toshav, one may borrow money from him and lend money to him with interest, since he is not a Jew. The mishna indicates that a Jew may lend money with interest to a gentile ab initio. Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: This ruling of the mishna is necessary only to teach that one may lend money with interest to a ger toshav only to the extent required to provide a livelihood to the lender, but not to do so as a regular business. Ravina said: Here in the mishna we are dealing with Torah scholars, for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason the Sages decreed that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that perhaps the Jew will learn from the gentile’s actions. Continuous interactions with gentiles for the sake of financial dealings may have a negative influence on a Jew. And since in this case the lender is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from the gentile’s actions. There are those who teach that which Rav Huna said in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught: The verse states: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence. The Master said above: If one of My people and a gentile come to you for a loan, My people take precedence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Is there any reason to think that a gentile would take precedence over a Jew? Rav Naḥman said that Rav Huna said to me: It is necessary only to teach that even if the choice is to lend money to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend money with interest. If a person calls another a wicked person in public, the other becomes insulted and he harasses him in all aspects of his life because he called him by this disgraceful name. But they who lend with interest bring witnesses and a scribe [velavlar] and a pen [vekulmos] and ink and write and sign a document that testifies: So-and-so denies the existence of the God of Israel, as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Concerning anyone who has money and lends it without interest, the verse says about him: “He who has not given his money with interest and who has not taken a bribe against the innocent, he who does these shall never collapse” (Psalms 15:5). From this statement, the opposite can also be inferred: You learn from this that concerning anyone who lends his money to others with interest, his property, i.e., his financial standing, collapses. The Gemara asks: But we see people who do not lend money with interest and nevertheless their property collapses. Rabbi Elazar says: There is still a difference: Those who do not lend money with interest collapse but then ultimately rise, but these, who lend with interest, collapse and do not rise again. Referring to the subject of honest people who collapse temporarily, it is said: “Why do You observe the treacherous, and remain silent while the wicked swallows the one who is more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). Rav Huna says about this verse: One who is more righteous than he, he swallows for the moment, but he does not swallow a completely righteous person at all.

§ The Gemara returns to the clarification of the mishna, which mentioned the subject of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to the convert that is mentioned concerning the sale of a Hebrew slave and the ger toshav that is mentioned concerning interest, I do not know what the meaning of each of these references is. The Gemara explains: The convert that is mentioned concerning the sale of a Hebrew slave is referring to the following, as it is written: “If your brother waxes poor with you and is sold unto you” (Leviticus 25:39), and it was expounded in a baraita: And not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will be sold even to a convert, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger [leger]” (Leviticus 25:47). And this sale to a ger is referring to a sale not only to a righteous convert [leger tzedek], but even to a ger toshav, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [leger toshav]” (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse: “Or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it states: “Or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship. The Gemara clarifies the baraita. The Master said: And not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will be sold even to a convert, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger.” Is this to say that a convert may acquire a Hebrew slave? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, and a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. The Gemara explains the baraita. A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, as we require the fulfillment of the verse: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), and a convert is not able to do this, since upon conversion the convert severs his relationship with his gentile family, and he therefore has no family. The baraita teaches: And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. With regard to a woman, the reason is that it is not proper conduct, since people may say that she is purchasing him to engage in sexual intercourse with him. With regard to a convert as well, it is learned as a tradition: Only one who can be acquired as a Hebrew slave can acquire a Hebrew slave, and one who cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave cannot acquire a Hebrew slave. Since a convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, he also cannot acquire one. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s question was that since it has been established that a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave, why was he mentioned in the verse? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He cannot acquire a Hebrew slave and have his halakha be like that of a Jew who owns a Hebrew slave, but he can acquire a Hebrew slave and have his halakha be like that of a gentile who owns a Hebrew slave. This is as it is taught in a baraita: A Hebrew slave who had his ear pierced by his own request in order to remain a slave after his six-year period of servitude was over, and therefore is emancipated only during the Jubilee Year, and also a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, does not serve his master’s son and does not serve his master’s daughter after his master’s death, but rather is emancipated. The same halakha would apply to a Hebrew slave sold to a convert, whose status in this respect is similar to that of a gentile. The Master said above: And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it is taught in a baraita: A woman may acquire maidservants but may not acquire male slaves, in order to preserve standards of modesty. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may also acquire male slaves. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, the ruling is stated with regard to a Hebrew slave, and there, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel renders it permitted, the ruling is stated with regard to a Canaanite slave. The Gemara explains the difference: A Hebrew slave is regarded as discreet in her eyes, and since she trusts that a Hebrew slave will not reveal their actions to others if they engage in sexual intercourse, it is prohibited for her to acquire a male Hebrew slave. By contrast, a Canaanite slave is regarded as indiscreet in her eyes, so she will be deterred from transgressing with him. The Gemara asks: But this seems to contradict the baraita that Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog, due to suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger in her home. Granted, it makes sense that it is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes. But concerning a dog, since it would follow her around afterward if she would engage in bestiality with it, she is afraid to sin with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise it. The Sages say in response: Since it will also follow her around if she throws it a piece of meat [umtza], people will say: It is following her due to the meat she threw to it, and they will not suspect her of sinning. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.

§ The mishna teaches: And these people violate the prohibition of interest. Abaye says: The lender violates all of them, meaning all of the prohibitions listed in the mishna. The borrower violates the prohibition of: “You shall not lend to your brother with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:20), as he enables his brother to lend with interest. And they also violate the prohibition: “You may lend to a gentile with interest, but to your brother you shall not lend with interest” (Deuteronomy 23:21), as well as: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). The guarantor and the witness violate only: “Do not place interest upon him” (Exodus 22:24). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Those who lend with interest lose more than they gain, as they will eventually be punished by God. Moreover, a loan of this kind desecrates the name of Heaven, as they cause it to seem that Moses our teacher is a scholar and his Torah is true. This is a euphemism; Rabbi Shimon means that their actions make a mockery of Moses and his Torah. And this is because they say: Had Moses our teacher known that there was a profit involved in the matter, he would not have written it as a prohibition. Not only do they violate a mitzva but they also belittle the Torah. § The Gemara cites further statements with regard to loans in general. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: From where is it derived that with regard to one who is owed one hundred dinars by another and knows that the borrower does not have the funds to repay him, that it is prohibited for him to pass before the borrower, so as not to embarrass the borrower and cause him discomfort? The verse states: “Do not be to him as a creditor” (Exodus 22:24). Even if he does not claim the debt from the borrower, his presence reminds the latter of the debt, which distresses him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi both say that if one upsets another in this way, it is as though he sentences him to two types of punishments, as it is stated: “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12). As the one in control, a creditor is regarded as though he had brought the debtor through fire and water. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Whoever has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses violates the prohibition of: “And you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as this tempts the borrower not to repay his debt. And Reish Lakish says: He brings a curse upon himself, as it is stated: “Let the lying lips be dumb, which speak arrogantly against the righteous, with pride and contempt” (Psalms 31:19), as when the lender comes to claim his money without any proof, people will think he is falsely accusing the borrower, and they will end up cursing him. The Gemara cites a related incident: The Sages said to Rav Ashi: Ravina fulfills all of the directives that the Sages say. Seeking to test him, Rav Ashi sent a messenger to him close to sunset on the eve of Shabbat, at the busiest time of the week, with the following request: Let the Master send me ten dinars as a loan, as I have happened upon a small piece of land for an acquisition and I need the money. Ravina sent a message to him: Let the Master bring witnesses and we will write a written document for this loan. Rav Ashi sent a message to him: Even I, as well? Do you suspect even me of shirking payment? Ravina sent a message to him: All the more so it is necessary to document a loan to the Master, who is occupied with his studies and therefore very likely to forget, and I will thereby bring a curse upon myself. The Sages taught in a baraita: There are three who cry out and are not answered, as they are responsible for their own troubles. And they are: One who has money and lends it not in the presence of witnesses, and one who acquires a master for himself, and one whose wife rules over him. The Gemara clarifies: One who acquires a master for himself, what is it? There are those who say that it is referring to one who attributes his property to a gentile. He falsely claims that his possessions belong to a gentile in order to evade his obligations, thereby inviting the gentile to take advantage of this declaration. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who writes a document bequeathing his property as a gift to his children in his lifetime, as he becomes financially dependent on them. And there are those who say that it is referring to one who has bad fortune in this town but does not go to a different town. He is consequently responsible for his own misfortunes.

The Gemara relates a story that involves rising early. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, found a certain officer [parhagavna] whose responsibility was to arrest thieves. He said to the officer: How are you able to arrest them? Aren’t they likened to beasts, as it is written: “You make darkness and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep forth” (Psalms 104:20)? There are those who say that he said to him a proof from this verse: “He lies in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor when he draws him up in his net” (Psalms 10:9). Since the wicked are so devious, perhaps you apprehend the righteous and leave the wicked alone? The officer said to him: But what should I do? It is the king’s edict [harmana] that I must arrest thieves, and I am perform-ing my job to the best of my ability. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to him: Come and I will instruct you how you should do it. At the fourth hour of the day enter the tavern. When you see someone drinking wine, holding his cup in his hand, and dozing, inquire about his background. If he is a Torah scholar and is dozing, assume that he rose early in the morning for his studies. If he is a daytime laborer, assume that he rose early and performed his work. And if his work is at night and no one heard him working, it is possible that this is because he draws copper wires, which is a form of labor that does not produce noise. And if he is none of these, he is a thief, and you should arrest him, as it can be assumed that he was awake the previous night because he was stealing, and that is why he is now dozing off. This matter of the advice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was heard in the king’s palace. The king’s ministers said: Let the reader of the letter be its messenger [parvanka], i.e., since Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, offered this advice, he should be the one to implement it. They brought Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to the authorities who appointed him to this task, and he proceeded to arrest thieves. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the following message: You are vinegar, son of wine, i.e., you are wicked in comparison to your father, the righteous Rabbi Shimon, just as vinegar is spoiled wine. Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution by a gentile king’s court? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, sent a message back to him: I am merely eradicating thorns from the vineyard, i.e., I am removing the wicked from the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent back to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard, i.e., God, come and eradicate His own thorns. It is not your place to do this. The Gemara relates: One day, a certain laundryman met Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and called him vinegar, son of wine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: From the fact that this man acted so insolently by vilifying a Torah scholar, one can conclude that he is a wicked person. He told the authorities: Arrest that man. They arrested him and condemned him to death. After his mind settled, i.e., when his anger abated, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, regretted his hasty decision. He went after the laundryman in order to ransom him and save him from execution, but he was unable to do so. He read the verse about him: “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue, keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23), i.e., had the laundryman not issued his derogatory comment he would have been spared this fate. Ultimately, they hanged the laundryman. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, stood beneath the gallows and wept. Those who were present said to him: Our teacher, let it not be bad in your eyes that you caused his death, as this laundryman was a wholly wicked person; you should know that he and his son both engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman on Yom Kippur. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, placed his hand upon his belly, over his innards, and said: Rejoice, my innards, rejoice! If your mere suspicions are so accurate, all the more so your certainties must be correct. If the condemnation of this man based upon the suspicions raised by his insolence proved to be correct, the identification of thieves in accordance with logical reasoning must certainly be accurate. I am assured about you, my innards, that worm and maggot will not affect you, which is a sign of a completely righteous person. Nevertheless, his mind was not calmed. He decided to test himself. He arranged for people to give him a sedative to drink, and they brought him into a house of marble, where surgeries were performed, and cut open his belly. They removed baskets upon baskets of fat from it, placed them in the hot sun in the summer months of Tammuz and Av, and the fat did not putrefy. In this manner, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, received proof that his decisions were correct and that he was a wholly righteous individual. The Gemara questions what the proof was: This is not sufficient proof, as all fat that is not attached to flesh does not putrefy. The Gemara answers: True, all fat not attached to flesh does not putrefy, but the red veins within the fat do putrefy. Here, by contrast, although there were red veins in the fat, they did not putrefy, which is a sign of his righteousness. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, read the verses about himself: “I have set the Lord always before me…therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also dwells in safety” (Psalms 16:8–9). The Gemara relates: And a similar incident also occurred to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., he too was appointed head officer. Elijah the prophet encountered him and said to him: Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Elijah: What should I do? It is the king’s edict that I must obey. Elijah said to him: Faced with this choice, your father fled to Asia. You should flee to Laodicea rather than accept this appointment.

§ With regard to these Sages, the Gemara adds: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would meet each other, it was possible for a pair of oxen to enter and fit between them, under their bellies, without touching them, due to their excessive obesity. A certain Roman noblewoman [matronita] once said to them: Your children are not really your own, as due to your obesity it is impossible that you engaged in intercourse with your wives. They said to her: Theirs, i.e., our wives’ bellies, are larger than ours. She said to them: All the more so you could not have had intercourse. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: “For as the man is, so is his strength” (Judges 8:21), i.e., our sexual organs are proportionate to our bellies. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: Love compresses the flesh. The Gemara asks: And why did they respond to her audacious and foolish question? After all, it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4). The Gemara answers: They answered her in order not to cast aspersions on the lineage of their children. The Gemara continues discussing the bodies of these Sages: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The organ of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was the size of a jug of nine kav. Rav Pappa said: The organ of Rabbi Yoḥanan was the size of a jug of five kav, and some say it was the size of a jug of three kav. Rav Pappa himself had a belly like the baskets [dikurei] made in Harpanya. With regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s physical features, the Gemara adds that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I alone remain of the beautiful people of Jerusalem. The Gemara continues: One who wishes to see something resembling the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥanan should bring a new, shiny silver goblet from the smithy and fill it with red pomegranate seeds [partzidaya] and place a diadem of red roses upon the lip of the goblet, and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster is a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was Rabbi Yoḥanan so beautiful? But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; and the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man, who was created in the image of God. And yet Rabbi Yoḥanan is not included in this list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan is different from these other men, as he did not have a beauty of countenance, i.e., he did not have a beard. The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥanan’s beauty. Rabbi Yoḥanan would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said to himself: When Jewish women come up from their immersion for the sake of a mitzva, after their menstruation, they should encounter me first, so that they have beautiful children like me, and sons learned in Torah like me. This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Isn’t the Master worried about being harmed by the evil eye by displaying yourself in this manner? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: I come from the offspring of Joseph, over whom the evil eye does not have dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22); and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain [alei ayin]”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye [olei ayin]. Joseph’s descendants are not susceptible to the influence of the evil eye. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that this idea is derived from here: “And let them grow [veyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish [dagim] in the sea, the water covers them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, as they are not seen, so too, with regard to the offspring of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them. The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥanan was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself. Rabbi Yoḥanan taught Reish Lakish Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general. These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence. As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥanan, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.” Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, died. Rabbi Yoḥanan was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm Rabbi Yoḥanan’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not. Rabbi Yoḥanan went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? Rabbi Yoḥanan screamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e., he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, and Rabbi Yoḥanan died.

§ After this digression, the Gemara returns to the story of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And although his flesh did not putrefy, even so Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, still did not rely on his own opinion, as he was worried that he may have erred in one of his decisions. He accepted afflictions upon himself as atonement for his possible sins. At night his attendants would spread out sixty felt bed coverings for him. In the morning, despite the bed coverings, they would remove sixty basins of blood and pus from underneath him. The following day, i.e., every morning, his wife would prepare for him sixty types of relish [lifda] made from figs, and he would eat them and become healthy. His wife, concerned for his health, would not allow him to go to the study hall, so that the Rabbis would not push him beyond his limits. In the evening, he would say to his pains: My brothers and my friends, come! In the morning he would say to them: Go away, due to the dereliction of Torah study that you cause me. One day his wife heard him inviting his pains. She said to him: You are bringing the pains upon yourself. You have diminished the money of my father’s home due to the costs of treating your self-imposed afflictions. She rebelled against him and went back to her father’s home, and he was left with no one to care for him. Meanwhile, there were these sixty sailors who came and entered to visit Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. They brought him sixty servants, each bearing sixty purses, and prepared him sixty types of relish and he ate them. When they had encountered trouble at sea, these sailors had prayed to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Upon returning to dry land, they presented him with these gifts. One day, the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to her daughter: Go and check on your father and see what he is doing now. The daughter came to her father, who said to her: Go and tell your mother that ours is greater than theirs, i.e., my current financial status is greater than that of your father’s household. He read the verse about himself: “She is like the merchant-ships; she brings her food from afar” (Proverbs 31:14). As he was unhindered by his wife from going to the study hall, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, ate and drank and became healthy and went out to the study hall. The students brought sixty questionable samples of blood before him for inspection, to determine whether or not they were menstrual blood. He deemed them all ritually pure, thereby permitting the women to engage in intercourse with their husbands. The Rabbis of the academy were murmuring about Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and saying: Can it enter your mind that there is not one uncertain sample among them? He must be mistaken. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my ruling, let all the children born from these women be males. And if not, let there be one female among them. It turned out that all of the children were males, and they were called Elazar in his name. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lamented and said concerning the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: How much procreation has this evil woman prevented from the Jewish people. She caused women not to have children by preventing her husband from going to the study hall and rendering his halakhic rulings. As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was dying, he said to his wife: I know that the Rabbis are angry at me for arresting several thieves who are their relatives, and therefore they will not properly tend to my burial. When I die, lay me in my attic and do not be afraid of me, i.e., do not fear that anything will happen to my corpse. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Rabbi Yonatan’s mother told me that the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, told her: I laid him in the attic for no less than eighteen years and for no more than twenty-two years. His wife continued: When I would go up to the attic I would check his hair, and when a hair would fall out from his head, blood would come and appear in its place, i.e., his corpse did not decompose. One day I saw a worm emerging from his ear, and I became very distressed that perhaps his corpse had begun to decompose. My husband appeared to me in a dream and said to me: It is no matter for concern. Rather, this is a consequence for a sin of mine, as one day I heard a Torah scholar being insulted and I did not protest as I should have. Therefore, I received this punishment in my ear, measure for measure. During this period, when two people would come for adjudication of a dispute, they would stand by the doorway to the home of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. One litigant would state his side of the matter, and the other litigant would state his side of the matter. A voice would issue forth from his attic, saying: So-and-so, you are guilty; so-and-so, you are innocent. The Gemara relates: One day, the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was quarreling with a neighbor. The neighbor said to her as a curse: This woman should be like her husband, who was not buried. When word spread that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had not been buried, the Rabbis said: This much, i.e., now that the matter is known, to continue in this state is certainly not proper conduct, and they decided to bury him. There are those who say that the Sages found out that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had not been buried when Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, his father, appeared to them in a dream and said to them: I have a single fledgling among you, i.e., my son, and you do not wish to bring it to me by burying him next to me. Consequently, the Sages went to tend to his burial. The residents of Akhbaria, the town where the corpse of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was resting, did not allow them to do so, as they realized that all the years that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had been resting in his attic, no wild beast had entered their town. The townspeople attributed this phenomenon to his merit and they did not want to lose this protection. One day, which was Yom Kippur eve, everyone in the town was preoccupied with preparations for the Festival. The Rabbis sent a message to the residents of the adjacent town of Biri instructing them to help remove the body of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, from the attic, and they removed his bier and brought it to his father’s burial cave. They found a serpent [le’akhna] that had placed its tail in its mouth and completely encircled the entrance to the cave, denying them access. They said to it: Serpent, serpent! Open your mouth to allow a son to enter next to his father. It opened its mouth for them and uncoiled, and they buried Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, alongside his father. The Gemara continues: After this incident, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a messenger to speak with the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and propose marriage. She sent a message to him in response: Shall a vessel used by someone sacred, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, be used by someone who is, relative to him, profane? There, in Eretz Yisrael, they say that she used the colloquial adage: In the location where the master of the house hangs his sword, shall the contemptible shepherd hang his basket [kultei]? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a message back to her: Granted that in Torah he was greater than I, but was he greater than I in pious deeds? She sent a message back to him: Whether he was greater than you in Torah I do not know; but I do know that he was greater than you in pious deeds, as he accepted afflictions upon himself. The Gemara asks: With regard to Torah knowledge, what is the event that demonstrated the superiority of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, over Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara answers: When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, the leading Sages of the generation, were sitting on benches [asafselei] teaching Torah along with the other Sages, the youthful pair Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would sit before them on the ground out of respect. These two young students would engage in discussions with the Sages, in which they would raise difficulties and answer them brilliantly. Seeing the young scholars’ brilliance, the leading Sages said: From their waters we drink, i.e., we are learning from them, and they are the ones sitting on the ground? Benches were prepared for Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they were promoted to sit alongside the other Sages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to the other Sages present: I have a single fledgling among you, i.e., my son Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and you are seeking to take it from me? By promoting my son to such a prestigious position at such a young age, his chances of being adversely affected by the evil eye are greatly increased. They demoted Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to sit on the ground, at his father’s request. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to the Sages: Should one who has a father to care for him, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, be demoted so that he may live, while the other one, who does not have a father to care for him, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, should be allowed to die? Upon hearing his argument, the Sages also demoted Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, without explaining to him the reason for his demotion. He became offended and said to them: You are equating Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to me, by demoting us together. In fact, I am much greater than he. As a result of that incident, the relationship of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed. Up until that day, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would state a matter of Torah, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would support him by citing proofs for his opinion. From this point forward, when they were discussing a subject and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would say: I have an argument to respond, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would preempt him by saying to him: Such and such is what you have to respond, and this is the refutation of your claim. Now that you asked these questions, you have surrounded us with bundles of refutations that have no substance, i.e., you have forced us to give unnecessary answers. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would anticipate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s comments and immediately dismiss them as having no value. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became offended. He came and told his father what had transpired. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: My son, do not let his actions offend you, as he is a lion, son of a lion, and you are a lion, son of a fox. Rabbi Elazar’s father, Rabbi Shimon, was a renowned Sage, and therefore Rabbi Elazar’s sagacity is not surprising. In any event, this incident demonstrates the superiority of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to knowledge of Torah. The Gemara concludes: This incident is the background to a statement which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There are three prototypical modest people, and they are: Father, i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; the sons of Beteira; and Jonathan, son of Saul. The Gemara discusses each case: The incident revealing the modesty of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that which we just said, as he referred to himself modestly as a fox. The sons of Beteira were exceptionally modest, as they served in the position of Nasi and yet abdicated their positions in favor of Hillel when he emigrated from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. As the Master said: The sons of Beteira, upon recognizing that Hillel was a superior expert in halakha, seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them (see Pesaḥim 66a). Jonathan, son of Saul, was extremely modest, as he said to David: “And you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you” (I Samuel 23:17), despite the fact that his father, Saul, was the current king. The Gemara asks: From where do we know that the aforementioned men were truly modest? Perhaps Jonathan, son of Saul, relinquished his rights to the kingship not due to modesty, but because he saw that the world, i.e., the masses, were drawn after David, and he felt he had no other recourse. With regard to the sons of Beteira also, perhaps they abdicated only because they saw that Hillel was greater than they, as he was able to answer questions that they could not resolve. The Gemara adds: But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel certainly was a truly modest individual.

§ The Gemara returns to the previous incident. When he heard that the greatness of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was due to his suffering, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to himself: Afflictions are evidently precious. He accepted thirteen years of afflictions upon himself; six years of stones in the kidneys and seven years of scurvy [bitzfarna]. And some say it was seven years of stones in the kidneys and six years of scurvy. The Gemara relates: The stableman [ahuriyareih] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was wealthier than King Shapur of Persia, due to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s abundant livestock. When the stableman would place fodder before the livestock, the sound of their lowing would travel the distance of three mil. He would calculate the right moment so that he would place the fodder before the animals at precisely that time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered the latrine, so that the lowing of the animals would drown out Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s screams of pain. But even so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s voice was so loud that it overcame the sound of the livestock, and even sailors heard it out at sea. The Gemara says: But even so, the afflictions of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, were greater than those of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The reason is that whereas the afflictions of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, came upon him out of love, and left him out of love, i.e., they were solely the result of his own request, not because he deserved them, those of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came upon him due to an incident and left him due to another incident. The Gemara stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s suffering came upon him due to an incident. What was that incident that led to his suffering? The Gemara answers that there was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s garment and was weeping. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him. The Gemara explains the statement: And left him due to another incident. One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels [karkushta] lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering. The Gemara relates: During all the years of the suffering of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, no one died prematurely, as his afflictions atoned for the entire generation. During all the years of the suffering of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the world did not require any rain, as the moisture of the dew was sufficient. As Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: A day of rain is as difficult as a day of judgment, due to the damage that storms and flooding can cause. And Ameimar said: Were it not for the fact that rain is needed by people, the Sages would pray for mercy and annul it, due to the nuisances of rain. And even so, despite the fact that there was no rain all those years, when a radish was uprooted from its row in the field, there remained in its place a hole filled with water, due to the moisture in the earth. The Gemara continues discussing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s relationship with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arrived at the place of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. He said to the locals: Does that righteous person have a son? They said to him: He has a son who is wayward, and any prostitute who hires herself out to others for two coins hires him for eight, due to his handsomeness. Upon hearing this report, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi resolved to extricate Rabbi Elazar’s son from his plight. He brought him back with him, ordained him as a rabbi, and gave him over to Rabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya, the brother of the boy’s mother, to teach him Torah. Each day, the boy would say: I am going back to my town, because it was difficult for him to study. Rabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya said to him: You have been made wise, and a golden cloak has been spread over you when you were ordained, and you are called by the title Rabbi, and yet you say: I am going back to my town? The boy said to him: I vow [momei] that this thought of leaving is now abandoned, i.e., I will stay and improve my ways. When the boy matured and became a Torah scholar, he came and sat in the academy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard his voice and said: This voice is similar to the voice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Those who were present said to him: It is his son. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about him: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that is wise wins souls” (Proverbs 11:30). The Gemara explains, with regard to the phrase “the fruit of the righteous,” that this is referring to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who was the son of a righteous individual and became a great scholar in his own right. When the verse states: “And he that is wise wins souls,” this is referring to Rabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya, who successfully helped Rabbi Yosei reach his potential. When this Rabbi Yosei died, he was brought to his father’s cave for burial. A serpent encircled the entrance of the cave, denying any access. Those present said to it: Serpent, serpent! Open your mouth, so that a son may enter next to his father. The serpent did not open its mouth for them. The people there thought that Rabbi Yosei was denied burial alongside his father because this one, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was greater than that one, Rabbi Yosei. A Divine Voice emerged and said: It is not because this one is greater than that one; rather, it is because this one, Rabbi Elazar, experienced the suffering of the cave, while that one, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, did not experience suffering of the cave. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, suffered with his father for thirteen years in a cave while hiding from the Romans (see Shabbat 33b). The Gemara relates a similar incident: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arrived at the place of Rabbi Tarfon. He said to the townspeople: Does that righteous person, Rabbi Tarfon, who would take an oath by the life of his children, have a son? Rabbi Tarfon was wont to take oaths by the lives of his children (see Oholot 16:1). They said to him: He does not have a son, but he has a grandson, a son from his daughter, and every prostitute who is hired for two coins hires him for eight. The townspeople brought Rabbi Tarfon’s grandson before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said to him: If you repent from your evil ways, I will give you my daughter in marriage. He repented and became a righteous individual. There are those who say that he married Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s daughter and subsequently divorced her. There are those who say that he did not marry her at all, so that it would not be said about him: It was for the sake of that woman that this man repented. § The Gemara asks: And why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exert himself so much to save these wayward sons? The Gemara answers: It is because of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another merits to sit and study in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “Therefore so says the Lord: If you return, and I bring you back, you shall stand before Me” (Jeremiah 15:19). This verse, which is addressed to Jeremiah, indicates that if he is able to cause the Jewish people to return to God, he himself will be brought to stand before God.

§ The Gemara asks: And why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exert himself so much to save these wayward sons? The Gemara answers: It is because of that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another merits to sit and study in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: “Therefore so says the Lord: If you return, and I bring you back, you shall stand before Me” (Jeremiah 15:19). This verse, which is addressed to Jeremiah, indicates that if he is able to cause the Jewish people to return to God, he himself will be brought to stand before God. And anyone who teaches Torah to the son of an ignoramus achieves such an exalted status that even if the Holy One, Blessed be He, were to issue a harsh decree, He may nullify it for his sake, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And if you bring forth the precious out of the worthless, you shall be as My mouth,” i.e., you will be like the mouth of God that can rescind a decree. The Gemara relates other statements pertaining to Torah scholars and their descendants. Rabbi Parnakh says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who is a Torah scholar, and whose son is a Torah scholar, and whose grandson is a Torah scholar, the Torah will never again cease from his descendants, as it is stated: “And as for Me, this is My covenant…My spirit that is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed, nor out of the mouth of your seed’s seed, says the Lord, from now and forever” (Isaiah 59:21). The Gemara asks: What is the significance of the phrase “says the Lord”? The Gemara answers that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am your guarantor in this matter. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “from now and forever”? The verse mentioned only three generations. Rabbi Yirmeya says: The verse means that from this point forward, after three generations, the Torah returns to its lodging, i.e., the Torah is now ingrained in the family. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef fasted forty fasts so that the Torah would become ingrained in his family, and he was read the verse in a dream: “My words…shall not depart out of your mouth.” He fasted an additional forty fasts and he was read: “Shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed.” He fasted an additional one hundred fasts. In a dream, he came and was read the conclusion of the verse: “Shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed, nor out of the mouth of your seed’s seed.” He said: From this point forward I do not need to fast anymore, as I am now assured that the Torah will return to its lodging. The Gemara relates a similar occurrence: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he fasted one hundred fasts so that he would forget the Babylonian method of studying Gemara, so that it would not hinder him from adapting to the unique style of study prevalent in Eretz Yisrael. He fasted an additional one hundred fasts so that Rabbi Elazar, ben Pedat, would not die during his lifetime, which would have caused the burden of communal matters to fall upon him. As dean of the Torah academy, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat was in charge of all public affairs, leaving Rabbi Zeira unencumbered to study Torah. Rabbi Zeira fasted an additional one hundred fasts so that the fire of Gehenna should not affect him. The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Zeira: Every thirty days, he would examine himself to ascertain if he remained on his exalted level. He would ignite an oven, climb in, and sit inside it, and the fire would not affect him. One day, the Sages gave him the evil eye, i.e., they were envious of him, and his legs became singed in the fire. And from then on they referred to him as: The short one with singed legs.

§ The Gemara discusses the topic of the acquisition of Torah knowledge. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who is the wise man, that he may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it? Why has the land been lost and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through?” (Jeremiah 9:11). This matter, i.e., the question: Why has the land been lost, was stated by the Sages, i.e., the wise man mentioned in the verse, and yet they could not explain it. It was stated by the prophets, i.e., those to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, and yet they could not explain it, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained it, as it is stated in the next verse: “And the Lord says: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them” (Jeremiah 9:12). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This does not mean that the Jewish people ceased Torah study altogether; rather, they did not recite a blessing on the Torah prior to its study, as they did not regard Torah study as a sacred endeavor. Rav Ḥama says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In the heart of him that has discernment wisdom rests; but in the inward part of fools it makes itself known” (Proverbs 14:33)? “In the heart of him who has discernment wisdom rests”; this is a Torah scholar, son of a Torah scholar. “But in the inward part of fools it makes itself known”; this is a Torah scholar, son of an ignoramus, as his wisdom stands out in contrast to the foolishness of the rest of his family. Ulla said: This explains the adage that people say: A small coin in an empty barrel calls: Kish, kish, i.e., it rattles loudly, whereas a coin in a barrel full of coins is not heard. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the World-to-Come: “The humble and great are there; and the servant is free from his master” (Job 3:19)? Is that to say that we do not know that the humble and the great are there in the World-to-Come? Rather, this is the meaning of the verse: Anyone who humbles himself over matters of Torah in this world becomes great in the World-to-Come; and anyone who establishes himself as a servant over matters of Torah in this world becomes free in the World-to-Come. § The Gemara continues discussing the greatness of the Sages. Reish Lakish was demarcating burial caves of the Sages. When he arrived at the cave of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the precise location of his grave eluded him. Reish Lakish became distressed, as he was apparently unworthy of finding the grave. He said: Master of the Universe! Did I not analyze the Torah like Rabbi Ḥiyya? A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: You did analyze the Torah like him, but you did not disseminate Torah like him.

§ The Gemara continues discussing the greatness of the Sages. Reish Lakish was demarcating burial caves of the Sages. When he arrived at the cave of Rabbi Ḥiyya, the precise location of his grave eluded him. Reish Lakish became distressed, as he was apparently unworthy of finding the grave. He said: Master of the Universe! Did I not analyze the Torah like Rabbi Ḥiyya? A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: You did analyze the Torah like him, but you did not disseminate Torah like him. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Ḥiyya would debate matters of Torah, Rabbi Ḥanina would say to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Do you think you can debate with me? Heaven forbid! If the Torah were forgotten from the Jewish people, I could restore it with my powers of analysis and intellectual acumen. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Ḥanina: Do you think you can debate with me? You cannot compare yourself to me, as I am acting to ensure that the Torah will not be forgotten by the Jewish people. Rabbi Ḥiyya elaborated: What do I do to this end? I go and sow flax seeds and twine nets with the flax, and then I hunt deer and feed their meat to orphans. Next I prepare parchment from their hides and I write the five books of the Torah on them. I go to a city and teach five children the five books, one book per child, and I teach six other children the six orders of the Mishna, and I say to them: Until I return and come here, read each other the Torah and teach each other the Mishna. This is how I act to ensure that the Torah will not be forgotten by the Jewish people. The Gemara notes that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How great are the deeds of Rabbi Ḥiyya! Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Are his deeds even greater than the Master’s, i.e., yours? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yishmael persisted: Are they even greater than those of my father, Rabbi Yosei? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Heaven forbid! Such a statement shall not be heard among the Jewish people, that someone is greater than your father, Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara continues discussing the greatness of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Zeira said: Last night, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, appeared to me in a dream. I said to him: Near whom are you placed in the upper realms? He said to me: Near Rabbi Yoḥanan. I asked: And Rabbi Yoḥanan is near whom? He replied: Near Rabbi Yannai. And Rabbi Yannai is near whom? Near Rabbi Ḥanina. And Rabbi Ḥanina is near whom? Near Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Zeira added: I said to Rabbi Yosei: But isn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan worthy of being placed near Rabbi Ḥiyya? He said to me: In a place of fiery sparks and burning fires, who can bring Rabbi Yoḥanan, son of Nappaḥa, there? Rav Ḥaviva said: Rav Ḥaviva bar Surmakei told me: I once saw one of the Sages whom Elijah the prophet would visit, and his eyes looked beautiful and healthy in the morning, but appeared to be charred by fire in the evening. I said to him: What is this phenomenon? And he said to me: I said to Elijah: Show me the Sages upon their ascension to the heavenly academy. Elijah said to me: You may gaze at all of them except for those in the chariot [miguharka] of Rabbi Ḥiyya, upon whom you may not gaze. I asked Elijah: What are the signs of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s chariot, so I will know when not to look? He said: Angels accompany all of the other Sages’ chariots as they ascend and descend, except for the chariot of Rabbi Ḥiyya, which ascends and descends of its own accord, due to his greatness. The Sage relating this story continued: I was unable to restrain myself, and I gazed upon Rabbi Ḥiyya’s chariot. Two fiery flames came and struck that man, i.e., me, and blinded his eyes. The next day, I went and prostrated on Rabbi Ḥiyya’s burial cave in supplication. I said: I study the baraitot of the Master, Rabbi Ḥiyya; please pray on my behalf. And my vision was healed, but my eyes remained scorched. The Gemara relates another incident involving Elijah the prophet. Elijah was often found in the academy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One day it was a New Moon, the first of the month, and Elijah was delayed and did not come to the academy. Later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Elijah: What is the reason that the Master was delayed? Elijah said to him: I had to wake up Abraham, wash his hands, and wait for him to pray, and then lay him down again. And similarly, I followed the same procedure for Isaac, and similarly for Jacob in turn. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Elijah: And let the Master wake them all together. Elijah responded: I maintain that if I were to wake all three to pray at the same time, they would generate powerful prayers and bring the Messiah prematurely. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Elijah: And is there anyone alive in this world who is comparable to them and can produce such efficacious prayers? Elijah said to him: There are Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decreed a fast, and the Sages brought Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons down to the pulpit to pray on behalf of the congregation. Rabbi Ḥiyya recited the phrase in the Amida prayer: Who makes the wind blow, and the wind blew. Rabbi Ḥiyya recited the next phrase: Who makes the rain fall, and rain fell. When he was about to say the phrase: Who revives the dead, the world trembled. They said in heaven: Who is the revealer of secrets in the world? They said in response: It is Elijah. Elijah was brought to heaven, whereupon he was beaten with sixty fiery lashes. Elijah came back down to earth disguised as a bear of fire. He came among the congregation and distracted them from their prayers, preventing Rabbi Ḥiyya from reciting the phrase: Who revives the dead. § The Gemara relates: Shmuel Yarḥina’a was the physician of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi felt a pain in his eye. Shmuel said to him: I will place a medication in your eye. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I cannot have the medication placed directly in my eye, as I am afraid it will cause me too much pain. Shmuel said to him: I will apply a salve above your eye, not directly in it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Even that I cannot bear. Shmuel placed the medication in a tube of herbs beneath his pillow, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was healed. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi made efforts to ordain Shmuel Yarḥina’a as a rabbi but was unsuccessful, as Shmuel always demurred. Shmuel Yarḥina’a said to him: The Master should not be upset about my refusal, as I know that I am not destined to be ordained as a rabbi. I myself saw the book of Adam the first man, which contains the genealogy of the human race, and it is written in it that Shmuel Yarḥina’a shall be called a wise [ḥakim] physician, but he shall not be called rabbi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s convalescence shall be through him. I also saw written there: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im, the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im, the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im. And your mnemonic to remember that Rav Ashi and Ravina redacted the Talmud is the verse: “Until I entered into the sanctuary [mikdashei] of God, and considered [avina] their end” (Psalms 73:17). The sanctuary, mikdashei, alludes to Rav Ashi, while the term avina alludes to Ravina, which is a contraction of Rav Avina. The phrase: Their end, is interpreted as a reference to the redacting of the Talmud.

§ The Gemara relates another story discussing the greatness of the Sages. Rav Kahana said: Rav Ḥama, son of the daughter of Ḥasa, told me that Rabba bar Naḥmani died due to the fear of a decree of religious persecution. The Gemara explains: His enemies accused him [akhalu beih kurtza] of disloyalty in the king’s palace, as they said: There is one man from among the Jews who exempts twelve thousand Jewish men from the king’s head tax two months a year, one month in the summer and one month in the winter. Since many people would study in Rabba’s study hall during the months of Adar and Elul, he was being blamed for preventing those people from working during those months. They sent a messenger [peristaka] of the king after him, but he was not able to find him. Rabba bar Naḥmani fled and went from Pumbedita to Akra, from Akra to Agma, from Agma to Shiḥin, from Shiḥin to Tzerifa, from Tzerifa to Eina Demayim, and from Eina Demayim back to Pumbedita. Ultimately, he was found in Pumbedita, as the king’s messenger arrived by chance at that same inn where Rabba bar Naḥmani was hiding. The inn attendants placed a tray before the messenger and gave him two cups to drink. They then removed the tray from before him and his face was miraculously turned backward. The attendants said to Rabba bar Naḥmani: What should we do with him? He is the king’s man, and we cannot leave him like this. Rabba bar Naḥmani said to them: Place a tray before him and give him one cup to drink, and then remove the tray from before him and he will be healed. They did this, and he was healed. The messenger said: I am certain that the man I seek is here, as this unnatural event must have befallen me on his account. He searched for Rabba bar Naḥmani and found out where he was. The messenger said that they should tell Rabba bar Naḥmani: I will leave this inn and will not disclose your location. Even if they will kill that man, i.e., me, I will not disclose your location. But if they will beat him, me, I will disclose your whereabouts, as I cannot bear being tortured. With that guarantee, they brought Rabba bar Naḥmani before the messenger. They took him into a small vestibule [le’idrona] and closed the door before him. Rabba bar Naḥmani prayed for mercy, and the wall crumbled. He fled and went to hide in a swamp. He was sitting on the stump of a palm tree and studying Torah alone. At that moment, the Sages in the heavenly academy were disagreeing with regard to a halakha of leprosy. In general, a leprous spot includes two signs of impurity, a bright white spot and a white hair. The basic halakha is that if the snow-white leprous sore [baheret] preceded the white hair then the afflicted person is ritually impure, but if the white hair preceded the baheret, he is pure. The heavenly debate concerned a case of uncertainty as to which came first, the spot or the hair. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: The individual is pure, but every other member of the heavenly academy says: He is impure. And they said: Who can arbitrate in this dispute? They agreed that Rabba bar Naḥmani should arbitrate, as Rabba bar Naḥmani once said: I am preeminent in the halakhot of leprosy and I am preeminent in the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents. They sent a messenger from heaven after him to take his soul up to the heavenly academy, but the Angel of Death was unable to approach Rabba bar Naḥmani, as his mouth did not cease from his Torah study. In the meantime, a wind blew and howled between the branches. Rabba bar Naḥmani thought that the noise was due to an infantry battalion [gunda] about to capture him. He said: Let that man, i.e., me, die and not be given over to the hands of the government. The Angel of Death was therefore able to take his soul. As he was dying, he said in response to the dispute in heaven: It is pure; it is pure. A Divine Voice emerged from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabba bar Naḥmani, as your body is pure and your soul left you with the word: Pure. A note [pitka] fell from heaven and landed in the academy of Pumbedita. The note read: Rabba bar Naḥmani was summoned to the heavenly academy, i.e., he has died. Abaye and Rava and all of the other Rabbis went out to tend to his burial; however, they did not know the location of his body. They went to the swamp and saw birds forming a shade and hovering over a certain spot. The Rabbis said: We can conclude from this that he is there. The Rabbis lamented him for three days and three nights. A note fell from heaven, upon which was written: Anyone who removes himself from the lamentations shall be ostracized. Accordingly, they lamented him for seven days. Another note fell from heaven, stating: Go to your homes in peace. On that day when Rabba bar Naḥmani died, a hurricane lifted a certain Arab [taya’a] merchant while he was riding his camel. The hurricane carried him from one side of the Pappa River and threw him onto the other side. He said: What is this? Those present said to him: Rabba bar Naḥmani has died. He said before God: Master of the Universe! The entire world is Yours and Rabba bar Naḥmani is also Yours. You are to Rabba and Rabba is to You, i.e., you are beloved to each other. If so, why are You destroying the world on his account? The storm subsided. The Gemara concludes its earlier discussion of obese Sages (84a). Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was obese. One day he was particularly hot and went and sat on a mountain boulder to cool himself off. He said to his daughter: My daughter, fan me with a fan, and as a gift I will give you packages of spikenard. In the meantime, a strong wind blew. He said: How many packages of spikenard do I owe to the overseers of this wind? § The Gemara returns to its discussion of the mishna (83a), which teaches that an employer must provide his laborers with sustenance, all in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the inclusive term: All? The Gemara answers: This serves to include a place where it is customary for the laborers to eat bread and drink a quarter-log [anpaka] of wine. As, if in such a case the employer were to say to them: Arise early in the morning and I will bring you this sustenance, so as not to waste work time, they may say to him: It is not in your power to compel us to do so.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need three calves? One calf should be sufficient for three guests. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: Abraham prepared three calves in order to feed the guests three tongues with mustard, a particular delicacy. With regard to this incident, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: A person should never deviate from the local custom, as Moses ascended to heaven on high and did not eat bread while he was there, whereas the ministering angels descended down to this world, as guests visiting Abraham, and they ate bread. You say: And they ate bread? Can it enter your mind that they actually ate food? Rather, say that they merely appeared as though they ate and drank. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Every action that Abraham performed himself for the ministering angels, the Holy One, Blessed be He, performed Himself for Abraham’s descendants. And every action that Abraham performed through a messenger, the Holy One, Blessed be He, likewise performed for his descendants through a messenger. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And Abraham ran to the herd” (Genesis 18:7), bringing the meat himself, and in reference to God’s actions for Abraham’s descendants the verse states: “And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought across quails from the sea” (Numbers 11:31), that God brought meat to them. In reference to Abraham, the verse states: “And he took curd and milk” (Genesis 18:8), and God says to the Jewish people: “Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you” (Exodus 16:4), which shows that God gave food to the Jewish people. With regard to Abraham, the verse states: “And he stood by them under the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8), and in reference to God, the verse states: “Behold, I will stand before you there upon the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and there shall come water out of it” (Exodus 17:6). In the case of Abraham it is written: “And Abraham went with them to bring them on the way” (Genesis 18:16), and the verse states: “And the Lord went before them by day” (Exodus 13:21). By contrast, Abraham performed certain actions through an agent. He said: “Let now a little water be fetched” (Genesis 18:4), and correspondingly the verse states in reference to Moses, God’s messenger: “And you shall strike the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink” (Exodus 17:6). The Gemara notes: And in stating this, Rav disagrees with that statement of Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. As Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: In reward for three acts of hospitality that Abraham performed for the angels, his descendants merited three rewards. The Gemara elaborates: In reward for providing them with curd and milk, the Jewish people merited the manna; in reward for: “And he stood [omed] by them,” the Jews merited the pillar [amud] of cloud; in reward for Abraham saying: “Let now a little water be fetched,” they merited the well of Miriam. This statement does not distinguish between actions performed by Abraham himself and those performed by means of a messenger. The Gemara continues its analysis of the verse: “Let now a little water be fetched and wash your feet” (Genesis 18:4). Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, said that the guests said to Abraham: Are you suspicious that we are Arabs who bow to the dust of their feet? Yishmael has already issued from him, i.e., your own son acts in this manner. §

Despite the intense heat, Abraham wanted to invite guests. He sent Eliezer his slave to go outside to see if there were any passersby. Eliezer went out but did not find anyone. Abraham said to him: I do not believe you. The Gemara comments: This demonstrates the popular adage that people there, i.e., in Eretz Yisrael, say: Slaves do not have any credibility. The Gemara continues: Abraham himself went out and saw the Holy One, Blessed be He, standing at the entrance to his tent. This is as it is written: “My Lord, if now I have found favor in your eyes, do not leave Your servant” (Genesis 18:3), i.e., God’s presence was there, and Abraham asked Him for permission to attend to the travelers. Once God saw Abraham tying and untying the bandage on his circumcision, God said: It is not proper conduct to stand here, i.e., it is not respectful to Abraham even for God to stand there. This is as it is written: “And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood over him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them” (Genesis 18:2). The verse first states that they stood over him, and then it says that he ran to meet them. The Gemara reconciles this apparent contradiction: Initially, they came and stood over him. Upon seeing that he was in pain, they said: It is not proper conduct to stand here. The Gemara continues: Who are these three men? They are the angels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael: Michael, who came to announce to Sarah that she was to give birth to a son; Raphael, who came to heal Abraham after his circumcision; and Gabriel, who went to overturn Sodom. The Gemara asks: But it is written: “And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening” (Genesis 19:1). The Gemara answers that Michael went along with Gabriel to Sodom to save Lot. The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, as it is written: “And he overturned those cities” (Genesis 19:25), and it is not written: They overturned those cities. Conclude from it that only one angel overturned Sodom. The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to the incident involving Abraham, where the angels acquiesced immediately to his request to remain with him, as it is written: “So do, as you have said” (Genesis 18:5), and what is different with regard to Lot, where they first displayed reluctance, as it is written: “And he urged them greatly” (Genesis 19:3), only after which they acquiesced? Rabbi Elazar says: From here we learn that one may decline the request of a lesser man, but one may not decline the request of a great man. The Gemara continues analyzing the same passage. It is written: “And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and satisfy your heart” (Genesis 18:5), and it is written: “And Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good” (Genesis 18:7). Rabbi Elazar said: From here we learn that the righteous say little and do much, whereas the wicked say much and do not do even a little. From where do we derive this principle that the wicked say much and do not do even a little? We derive it from Ephron. Initially, it is written that Ephron said to Abraham: “A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between me and you?” (Genesis 23:15). And ultimately it is written: “And Abraham listened to Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), i.e., shekels that could be used in any location. This teaches that not only did Ephron take shekels from Abraham, he took from him only centenaria [kantarei], i.e., superior coins, as there is a place where they call a shekel a centenarius. The verse states: “Make ready quickly three measures of flour, fine flour” (Genesis 18:6). The Gemara questions the apparent redundancy. It is written: “Flour,” and it is also written: “Fine flour.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here we learn that a woman is more stingy with guests than a man. Sarah wanted to use merely flour, and Abraham persuaded her to use fine flour. The Gemara continues its analysis of the verses. It is written: “Knead it, and make cakes” (Genesis 18:6), and two verses later it is written: “And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he prepared” (Genesis 18:8). Abraham served these items to the guests, and yet he did not bring bread before them despite having instructed Sarah to prepare baked goods. Efrayim Miksha’a, disciple of Rabbi Meir, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham, our forefather, would eat non-sacred food only when he was in a state of ritual purity, i.e., he treated his food as though it were consecrated to God. And Sarah, our foremother, menstruated that day, which rendered the baked goods ritually impure, preventing Abraham from handling them. Therefore, they could not serve bread to their guests. The next verse states: “And they said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: Behold, in the tent” (Genesis 18:9). The Gemara explains that this verse serves to inform us that Sarah, our foremother, was a modest woman, as she remained inside while the guests were present. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it is Rabbi Yitzḥak who says: The ministering angels, who visited Abraham in the guise of travelers, knew that Sarah, our foremother, was inside the tent. Rather, what was the purpose of their eliciting Abraham’s response: In the tent? It was in order to endear her to her husband, by accentuating Sarah’s modesty. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: They inquired about her in order to send her the cup of blessing. It is customary to recite Grace after Meals over a cup of wine, which is then distributed to those present. It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: Why are there dots in the Torah scroll upon the letters alef, yod, and vav in the word “to him [eilav]”? These letters spell ayo, which means: Where is he? The Torah is teaching the proper etiquette, which is that a person should inquire of his hostess about his host, just as he should inquire about the welfare of his hostess from the host. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may not inquire about the welfare of a woman at all, as this is immodest? The Gemara answers: A greeting by means of her husband is different. Asking a husband about his wife is not considered immodest. The Gemara analyzes the verses that describe Sarah at the time: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old [veloti] shall I have pleasure [edna]” (Genesis 18:12). Rav Ḥisda says: After the skin had worn out [nitballa] and become full of wrinkles, the skin once again became soft [nitadden] and her wrinkles smoothed out, and Sarah’s beauty returned to its place. It is written that Sarah said: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?” (Genesis 18:13). This verse indicates that the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not repeat to Abraham that which Sarah actually said, that her husband is old. Why did God change the wording of her statement so that she was referring to herself? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Peace is of such great importance that even the Holy One, Blessed be He, altered the truth for the sake of preserving peace, as it is stated: “And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, and my lord is old,” and it is written: “And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I certainly bear a child, and I am old?” In reference to Sarah having given birth to Isaac, the verse states: “And she said: Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah should nurse children?” (Genesis 21:7). The Gemara asks: How many children did Sarah nurse? Why does the verse use the plural form when she had only one child? Rabbi Levi says: That day when Abraham weaned his son Isaac, he prepared a great celebratory feast. All of the nations of the world were gossiping and saying to each other: See this old man and old woman who brought a foundling from the market and are saying: He is our son, and moreover they are making a great feast to bolster their claim. What did Abraham, our forefather, do? He went and invited all of the great men of that generation, and Sarah, our foremother, invited their wives. Each and every one of the wives brought her child with her but did not bring her wet nurse. And a miracle occurred to Sarah, our foremother, and her breasts were opened like two springs, and she nursed all of these children. And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Abraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Isaac’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Abraham. Everyone exclaimed and said: “Abraham fathered Isaac” (Genesis 25:19). § The Gemara continues discussing Abraham: Until Abraham, there was no aging, i.e., old age was not physically recognizable. Consequently, one who wanted to speak to Abraham would mistakenly speak to Isaac, and vice versa: An individual who wanted to speak to Isaac would speak to Abraham, as they were indistinguishable. Abraham came and prayed for mercy, and aging was at last noticeable, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age” (Genesis 24:1), which is the first time that aging is mentioned in the Bible. Until Jacob, there was no illness leading up to death; rather, one would die suddenly. Jacob came and prayed for mercy, and illness was brought to the world, allowing one to prepare for his death, as it is stated: “And one said to Joseph: Behold, your father is sick” (Genesis 48:1), which is the first time that sickness preceding death is mentioned in the Bible. Until Elisha, one did not fall ill and then heal, as everyone who fell ill would die. Elisha came and prayed for mercy and he was healed, as it is written: “Now Elisha fell ill with his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14). By inference, one can derive that he had previously fallen ill with other illnesses from which he did not die. The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill with three illnesses: One was due to the fact that he pushed Gehazi away with both hands, i.e., he banished Gehazi without granting him a chance to repent (see II Kings, chapter 5). One was due to the fact that he incited bears against young children (see II Kings 2:23–25). And one was the illness from which he died, as it is stated: “Now Elisha fell ill of his illness from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14). § The mishna (83a) teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya said to his son: Rather, before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: The stipulation that food will be provided is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only a meal of bread and legumes, which is the typical meal given to laborers. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ḥisda: Did we learn: Bread of legumes [pat kitnit], i.e., inferior-quality bread made of legumes, or did we learn: Bread and legumes [pat vekitnit]? Rav Ḥisda said to him: By God! That word vekitnit requires at its beginning the letter vav as large as an oar [mordeya] made of cypress wood [deliberot], i.e., pat vekitnit is undoubtedly the correct version. § The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya did not need to state this, as the principle is: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: This term: Everything, serves to add what? What is the tanna including by this term? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who hires a laborer and said to him: I will pay you as one or two of the residents of the city are paid, he gives him wages in accordance with the lowest wage paid in that region. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. The Rabbis say: One divides the difference between the highest and lowest paid wages, thereby giving the wages to this laborer according to the average of the regional custom. This halakha is alluded to in the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents out a house in a town to another in the rainy season, the owner cannot evict the renter from the house from the festival of Sukkot until Passover. If the rental was in the summer, he must give thirty days’ notice before he can evict him. And for a house located in the cities [uvakerakim], both in the summer and in the rainy season he must give twelve months’ notice. And for shops that he rented out, both in towns and in cities, he must give twelve months’ notice. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For a baker’s shop or a dyer’s shop, one must give three years’ notice.

MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.

MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.

MISHNA: If one rents out a house to another, the landlord bears the responsibility for providing the door, for providing the bolt, for providing the lock, and for providing every item in the house that is essential for normal living and requires the work of a craftsman to provide it. But with regard to an item that does not require the work of a craftsman, the renter is responsible to make it. The manure found in the courtyard of a rented house is the property of the landlord, and the renter has rights only to the ashes that come out of the oven and the stove, which can also be used as a fertilizer.

§ The Gemara returns to expounding the themes of blessings and the evil eye. The Torah states: “And the Lord will take away from you all sickness” (Deuteronomy 7:15). In interpreting this verse, Rav says: This verse is speaking about the evil eye. The Gemara comments: Rav conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav went to a graveyard, and did what he did, i.e., he used an incantation to find out how those buried there died, and he said: Ninety-nine of these died by the evil eye, and only one died by entirely natural means. And Shmuel says: This term: “All sickness,” refers to the wind. The Gemara comments: Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel says: Every injury suffered by people is due to the wind that enters wounds and bodily cavities. The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, aren’t there those executed by the monarchy and others killed by traumatic injury and not the wind? The Gemara responds: With regard to these too, were it not for the wind, they would prepare a medicine for those injured people and they would be healed and live, but the wind prevents this from happening. Rabbi Ḥanina says: This phrase: “All sickness,” refers to the cold, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: All occurrences that befall man are at the hands of Heaven, except for excess cold and heat, as it is stated: “Cold and heat are on the path of the perverse; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5). This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: This phrase: “All sickness,” refers to excrement, as the Master says: With regard to excrement of the nose, i.e., mucous, and excrement of the ear, i.e., earwax, if a large amount is emitted, having much of it is harmful, but having a bit of it is beneficial. Rabbi Elazar says: This term: “All sickness,” refers to the gall bladder. The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the term: “Sickness,” this refers to the gall bladder. And why is the gall bladder called sickness? It is because it makes a person’s entire body ill. Alternatively, it is called sickness because eighty-three diseases, the numerical value of maḥala, sickness, are dependent on the gall bladder. The Gemara comments: And with regard to all of them, consuming bread in the morning with salt and drinking a large jug of water negates their ill effects, as a simple morning meal is beneficial to the body. § The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession. In addition, his flesh does not generate excess sweat, and he engages in intercourse with his wife at the proper time, and he does not lust for another woman, and this meal is so advantageous that it even kills any louse in his intestines. And some say it even removes jealousy and brings in love. Since he is completely healthy, he is not inclined to be angered by others. In relation to the above baraita, Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that people say derived: Sixty runners ran but could not catch the man who ate in the morning, and the Sages likewise said: Arise early and eat, in the summer due to the sun and in the winter due to the cold, so that one’s body should have the strength to withstand the climate. Rava bar Mari said to him: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun smite them” (Isaiah 49:10). Why will the heat and the sun not smite them? Since they shall not hunger nor thirst, as they rose early to eat. Rava said to him: You said to me that it is derived from there, but I say to you that it is derived from here, a different verse: “And you shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and your water” (Exodus 23:25), which he interprets as follows: “And you shall serve the Lord your God,” this refers to the recitation of Shema and the Amida prayer, both of which constitute daily service of God. “And He will bless your bread and your water,” this refers to bread with salt and a large jug of water consumed after morning prayers. From that point onward, the rest of the verse: “And I will take sickness away from your midst,” will be fulfilled.

The Gemara relates another incident: Rabba bar Rav Huna had a certain forest on the bank of a river. They said to him: Let the Master cut down the trees on the riverbank in accordance with the above statement. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to them: Let those above and below me along the river cut down their trees first, and then I will cut down my trees. I will achieve nothing by cutting down my trees on my own. The Gemara asks: How can he do so, i.e., wait for others to act? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says concerning this: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others. Therefore, one must first perform the required action himself before offering advice to others. The Gemara responds: There it was the forest of the house of Parzak, the general, and it was obvious that they would pay no attention to a Jewish scholar. Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore said: If the workers of the Persian officer cut down, I will cut down as well, and if they do not cut down, why should I cut down for no purpose? Since if the pullers can stretch their ropes they can go along this side of the river, and if not, they will be unable to walk, but will have to cross over to the other side of the river. Therefore, no advantage exists to cutting down the trees that block part of the river. The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabba bar Rav Naḥman was going on a boat and saw a certain forest that was located right on the riverbank, as its trees had not been cut down to make room for the pullers. He said to those who were with him: To whom does this forest belong? They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said: This is reminiscent of the verse: “And the hand of the princes and the rulers has been first in this faithlessness” (Ezra 9:2), because a renowned scholar is acting improperly. Rabba bar Rav Naḥman said to them: Cut down, cut down to clear a path. Rabba bar Rav Huna arrived and found that his forest had been cut down. Since he was within his rights not to cut down his trees, as explained above, he grew angry and pronounced a curse: He who cut down this forest should have his branches cut down. The Sages said: Although he was unaware of the identity of the perpetrator, the Sage’s curse was nevertheless fulfilled, and consequently all the remaining years that Rabba bar Rav Huna was alive, the seed of Rabba bar Rav Naḥman did not last, as his children, his branches, died in his lifetime. Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars.

Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only if the town inhabitants do not go out in a crowd to perform the work themselves but pay workers to act on their behalf. But if they go out in a crowd, Torah scholars do not have to join them, as Torah scholars are not among those who go out in a crowd to perform work in public view. Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the digging of a river, i.e., the periodic deepening of a riverbed to prevent it from blocking up, the lower ones, i.e., those who live by the bottom of the river, must assist the upper ones in digging it and fixing it, as those located at the bottom of the river stand to gain from any work performed down to their houses. But the upper ones do not need to assist the lower ones, as the reverse is not the case. And the opposite is true with regard to the digging of a ditch to remove rainwater. In that case, those who live higher up are interested in the operation and therefore must help the lower ones, but the latter need not aid the higher ones in doing so in the upper area. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If there were five gardens that draw their water requirements from one spring and the spring became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the upper garden, near whose garden the damage occurred. As a result of this ruling, the owner of the lower garden fixes it with all of them in the above case, and fixes it for himself if the damage occurred in the lower area. And similarly, if there were five courtyards that would run off water into a single sewer and the sewer became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the lower courtyard, near whose courtyard the damage occurred. The result is that the owner of the upper courtyard fixes the sewer with all of them and fixes it for himself if the damage affected his courtyard alone. This is in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s ruling. Shmuel says: One who takes possession of an open space left along a riverbank for the purpose of loading and unloading in order to plow and plant there during the time that it is temporarily unused is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as this piece of land is considered ownerless. And nowadays, when the Persians write to one who acquires land alongside a river: Acquire for yourself the field up to the portion of the river itself where the water reaches a horse’s neck, we even go as far as to remove him from the plot of land, as it belongs to the owner of the field. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Naḥman said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.

The verse states: “You shall not oppress a hired laborer who is poor and needy, whether he be from your brothers or from your stranger that is in your land within your gates” (Deuteronomy 24:14), which is interpreted as follows: The term “from your brothers” serves to exclude others, i.e., gentiles, who are not your brothers. As for the term “your stranger,” this is referring to a righteous convert. As for the term “within your gates,” this is referring to a ger toshav who lives in Eretz Yisrael and eats unslaughtered animal carcasses because he has not accepted Judaism upon himself. I have derived only that the prohibitions of delaying wages apply to the hire of people. From where do I know to include payment for the rental of animals and utensils in the prohibition of delaying wages? The verse states: “In your land,” which includes all that is in your land. And in all of the above cases of delaying payment they transgress all of these prohibitions which apply to delaying payment.

§ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh found Elijah standing in a graveyard of gentiles. Rabba bar Avuh said to him: What is the halakha with regard to making arrangements for the debtor? Elijah said to him: A verbal analogy is derived from the usage of the term “poor” written in the context of a debtor and the term “poor” written in the context of valuations. With regard to valuations, it is written: “But if he is too poor [makh] for your valuation” (Leviticus 27:8), and with regard to a creditor, it is written: “But if your brother be poor [yamukh]” (Leviticus 25:35). Rabba bar Avuh now asks Elijah another question: From where is it derived with regard to a naked person that he may not separate teruma? He replied: As it is written: “And He see no unseemly thing in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). This verse indicates that one may not recite any words of sanctity, including the blessing upon separating teruma, in front of one who is naked. The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are not called “man.” Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: “If a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles. Rabba bar Avuh said to him: How could I be familiar with that baraita? If I cannot be proficient in the more commonly studied four orders of the Mishna, can I be knowledgeable in all six? Elijah said to him: Why are you not learned in them all? Rabba bar Avuh said to him: The matter of a livelihood is pressing for me, and I am therefore unable to study properly. Elijah led him and brought him into the Garden of Eden and said to him: Remove your cloak, gather up and take some of these leaves lying around. Rabba Bar Avuh gathered them up and took them. When he was exiting, he heard a voice that declared: Who else consumes his World-to-Come like Rabba bar Avuh, who takes his merit of the next world for his use in the present one? He spread out his cloak and threw away the leaves. Even so, when he brought his cloak back, he discovered that the cloak had absorbed such a good scent from those leaves that he sold it for twelve thousand dinars. Since he knew that this was taken from his portion in the World-to-Come, he did not want to benefit from it himself, and he therefore divided the sum among his sons-in-law.