Bava Batra: Greatest Hits

The Gemara asks: How could Bava ben Buta have advised Herod to raze the Temple and build another in its place, as will be described later? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say that a person must not demolish a synagogue unless he first builds another synagogue to take its place? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he saw cracks in the old Temple structure. And if you wish, say that actions taken by the government are different, as the government does not go back on its decisions. Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about negligence, as there is in the case of ordinary people. As Shmuel says: If the government says it will uproot mountains, it will uproot mountains and not retract its word. § The Gemara elaborates on the episode involving Bava ben Buta. Herod was a slave in the house of the Hasmoneans. He set his eyes upon a certain young girl from the house of the Hasmoneans. One day that man, Herod, heard a Divine Voice that said: Any slave who rebels now will succeed. He rose up and killed all his masters, but spared that girl. When that girl saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up to the roof and raised her voice, and said: Whoever comes and says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneans, is a slave, since only that girl, i.e., I, remained from them. And that girl fell from the roof to the ground and died. It is related that Herod preserved the girl’s body in honey for seven years to prevent it from decaying. There are those who say that he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse and there are those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse. According to those who say he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was to gratify his carnal desires. And according to those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was so that people would say he married a king’s daughter. Herod said to himself: Who expounds the verse: “One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) as meaning that he who is appointed as king must come from a Jewish family and cannot be an emancipated slave or a convert? It is the Sages who expound the verse in this manner, insisting that a king must have Jewish roots. He then rose up and killed all the Sages, but spared Bava ben Buta in order to take counsel with him. Herod placed a garland made of porcupine hide on Bava ben Buta’s head, which pricked his eyes out. One day Herod came and sat before him without identifying himself in order to test him. He, Herod, said: See, Master, what this evil slave Herod is doing. Bava ben Buta said to him: What should I do to him? Herod said to him: The Master should curse him. Bava ben Buta said to him: But it is written: “Do not curse the king, not even in your thoughts” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). Herod said to him: He is not a king, since he rules illegally. Bava ben Buta said to him: And even if he were merely a rich man I would not curse him, as it is written: “And do not curse a rich person in your bedchamber” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). And even were he only a leader I would not curse him, as it is written: “And you shall not curse a leader among your people” (Exodus 22:27). Herod said to him: That halakha stated with regard to “a leader among your people,” that is, to a fit Jew who acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law, and this one does not do the deeds of your people. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, I am afraid of him. Herod said to him: There is nobody who will go and tell him, since you and I are sitting here alone. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, it is written: “For a bird of the sky shall carry the sound, and that which has wings shall tell the matter” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). Herod said to him: I am he. Had I known that the Sages were so cautious I would not have killed them. Now, what is that man’s remedy, i.e., what can I do to repent for my sinful actions? Bava ben Buta said to him: He who extinguished the light of the world by killing the Torah Sages, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23), should go and occupy himself with the light of the world, the Temple, as it is written with regard to the Temple: “And all the nations shall flow [venaharu] unto it” (Isaiah 2:2), the word venaharu alluding to light [nehora]. There are those who say that this is what he said to him: He who blinded the eye of the world, as it is written in reference to the Sages: “And if it be committed through ignorance by the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24), should go and occupy himself with the eye of the world, the Temple, as it is written: “I will desecrate my Temple, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes” (Ezekiel 24:21). Herod said to him: I am afraid of the Roman government, that they will not permit me to make changes in the Temple. Bava ben Buta said to him: Send a messenger who will travel there for a year, and remain there for another year, and take yet another year to return. In the meantime, you can demolish the Temple and rebuild it. He did so. Eventually, they sent a message to Herod from Rome: If you have not yet demolished it, do not demolish it; and if you have already demolished it, do not rebuild it; and if you have demolished it and already rebuilt it, you shall be counted among those who act wickedly, seeking counsel only after they have already acted. Even if you are armed and in command of a military force, your book, i.e., your genealogical record, is here. You are neither a king [reikha] nor the son of a king, but rather Herod the slave who has made himself a freeman [kelonya]. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the word reikha? It denotes royalty, as it is written: “I am today a tender [rakh] and anointed king” (II Samuel 3:39). And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word is learned from here, from the term describing Joseph after he was appointed viceroy to the king: “And they cried before him, Avrekh” (Genesis 41:43). The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen a beautiful building in his life. The Gemara asks: With what did he build it? Rabba said: With stones of white and green marble [umarmara]. There are those who say that he built it with stones of blue, white, and green marble. Alternate rows of stones sent out an edge a bit and drew in an edge a bit, so that they would better receive and hold the plaster. He considered covering it with gold, but the Rabbis said to him: Leave it, and do not cover it, since it is more beautiful this way, as it looks like the waves of the sea. The Gemara asks: And how did Bava ben Buta do this, i.e., give advice to Herod the wicked? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says: For what reason was Daniel punished? Because he offered advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as after sharing a harsh prophecy with him, it is stated: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, redeem your sins with charity and your iniquities with graciousness to the poor, that there may be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” (Daniel 4:25). And it is written: “And at the end of twelve months” (Daniel 4:26). Only after a year was the prophecy fulfilled but not before that, apparently because Nebuchadnezzar heeded Daniel’s advice. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that a slave like Herod is different since he is obligated in the mitzvot, and therefore Bava ben Buta had to help him repent. And if you wish, say the Temple is different, as without the help of the government it would not have been built. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that Daniel was punished? If we say we know this because it is written: “And Esther called for Hatach, one of the king’s chamberlains, whom he had appointed to attend upon her” (Esther 4:5), and Rav said: Hatach is Daniel. This works out well according to the one who says Daniel was called Hatach because they cut him down [ḥatakh] from his greatness and turned him into a minor attendant. But according to the one who says he was called Hatach because all governmental matters were determined [ḥatakh] according to his word, what is there to say? What punishment did he receive? The Gemara answers: His punishment was that they threw him into the den of lions. § The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build a wall of non-chiseled stone, or chiseled stone, or small bricks, or large bricks, they must build the partition with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What does the word everything serve to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add a place where it is customary to build a partition out of palm and laurel branches. In such a place, the partition is built from those materials.

§ It is related that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia once imposed payment of the tax for the wall even on the Sages. Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require protection, as it is written: “How precious are your dear ones to me, O God…If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psalms 139:17–18). If I should count whom? If we say this is referring to the righteous, and the verse is saying that they are greater in number than the grains of sand, this is difficult. Now if it is written about all of Israel: “As the sand which is upon the seashore” (Genesis 22:17), can the righteous themselves, who are a part of Israel, be greater in number than the grains of sand? How can they possibly outnumber the grains of sand upon the seashore? Rather, this is what the verse is saying: If I should count the deeds of the righteous, they are greater in number than the grains of sand. And it follows by an a fortiori inference: If the grains of sand, which are fewer in number, protect the shore from the sea, barring it from flowing inland (see Jeremiah 5:22), do not all the more so the deeds of the righteous, which are greater in number, protect them? Consequently the Sages do not need additional protection. When Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and reported the exchange to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the reason that you did not quote this verse to him: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10), which may be explained as follows: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are Torah scholars, and towers do not require additional protection? The Gemara comments: And Reish Lakish, who did not cite this verse, holds in accordance with the way that Rava expounded the verse: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls. It is similarly related that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda once imposed payment of the poll tax [karga] even on the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have transgressed the words of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. You have transgressed the words of the Torah, as it is written: “Even when He loves the peoples, all His holy ones are in Your hand” (Deuteronomy 33:3), which is understood to mean that Moses said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when You hold the other nations dear and grant them dominion over Israel, let “all His holy ones,” meaning the Torah scholars, be exclusively in Your hand and free from the authority of the nations, and therefore be exempt from pay-ing taxes. The continuation of that verse can also be understood as referring to Torah scholars, as it states: “And they sit [tukku] at Your feet, receiving Your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3), and Rav Yosef teaches: These are Torah scholars who pound [mekhatetim] their feet from city to city and from country to country to study Torah; “receiving [yissa] Your words,” to discuss [lissa velitten] the utterances of God. And you have transgressed the words of the Prophets, as it is written: “Though they have hired lovers [yitnu] among the nations, now I will gather them, and they will begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of kings and princes” (Hosea 8:10). With regard to this verse, Ulla says: Part of this verse is stated in the Aramaic language; the word yitnu should be understood here in its Aramaic sense: To learn. And the verse should be interpreted as follows: If all of Israel learns Torah, I will gather them already now; and if only a few of them learn Torah, they will be excused from the burden imposed by kings and princes. This indicates that those who study Torah should not be subject to paying taxes. And furthermore, you have transgressed the words of the Writings, as it is written: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost or toll upon them” (Ezra 7:24), i.e., upon the priests and Levites who serve in the Temple. This halakha would apply to Torah scholars as well. And Rav Yehuda says: “Tribute”; this is referring to the king’s portion, a tax given to the king. “Impost”; this is referring to the head tax. “Toll”; this is referring to a tax [arnona] paid with property that was imposed from time to time. It is related that Rav Pappa once imposed a tax for the digging of a new cistern even on orphans. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: Perhaps they will dig, but in the end they will not draw any water from there, and it will turn out that the money will have been spent for nothing. The rest of the townspeople can relinquish their rights to their money, but orphans who are minors cannot do so. Rav Pappa said to him: I shall collect money from the orphans; if they draw water, they will draw water, and if not, I will return the money to the orphans. Rav Yehuda says: All of the city’s residents must contribute to the building and upkeep of the city gates [le’aglei gappa], and for this purpose money is collected even from orphans. But the Sages do not require protection and are therefore exempt from this payment. All of the city’s residents must contribute to the digging of cisterns [lekarya patya], and for this purpose money is collected even from the Sages, since they too need water. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the people are not required to go out en masse [be’akhluza] and do the actual digging, but are obligated merely to contribute money for that purpose. But if the people are required to go out en masse and actually dig, the Sages are not expected to go out with them en masse, but rather they are exempt from such labor. It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him. After Rabbi Yonatan left, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus. His son, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted to materially benefit from the honor shown to the Torah? They investigated the matter and found that such was the case. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then said: Let everyone enter, as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars. Commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conformed to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses. This is like the incident of the crown tax [kelila] that was imposed on the residents of the city of Tiberias. The heads of the city came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we will run away and the entire burden will fall on the Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. Half of the city’s residents ran away. The authorities then waived half the sum that they had initially imposed on the city. The half of the population that remained in the city then came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we too will run away. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. They all ran away, so that only one launderer was left in the city. The authorities imposed the entire tax on the launderer. The launderer then ran away as well. The crown tax was then canceled in its entirety. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: You see from this that suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses, for as soon as they all fled from the city, the crown tax was completely canceled.

Incidental to this story, the Gemara relates that Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, king of Persia, sent a purse [arneka] full of dinars to Rav Yosef. She said to him: Let the money be used for a great mitzva. Rav Yosef sat and considered the question: What did Ifera Hurmiz mean when she attached a condition to the gift, saying that it should be used for a great mitzva? Abaye said to him: From what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught, that one does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, learn from this that redeeming captives is a great mitzva. Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: Concerning this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is it derived? Rabba bar Mari said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” (Jeremiah 15:2). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whichever punishment is written later in this verse is more severe than the one before it. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The sword is worse than death. If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by way of logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This punishment, i.e., death by sword, mutilates the body, but that punishment, i.e., natural death, does not mutilate it. And if you wish, say that the fact that the sword is worse than death is learned from a verse: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15). Famine is worse than the sword. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This one, who dies of famine, suffers greatly before departing from this world, but that one, who dies by the sword, does not suffer. If you wish, say instead that the fact that famine is worse than the sword is learned from a verse: “More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of famine” (Lamentations 4:9). And captivity is worse than all of them, as it includes all of them, i.e., famine, the sword, and death.

The Gemara offers a mnemonic device for the following statements extolling the mitzva of charity: Greater; Temple; Moses. Rabbi Elazar says: One who causes others to perform [me’aseh] a meritorious act is greater than one who performs that act himself, as it is stated: “And the causing [ma’aseh] of righteousness shall be peace, and the work of righteousness, quietness, and assurance forever” (Isaiah 32:17). If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?” (Isaiah 58:7), i.e., he will wholeheartedly give charity to the poor. If he does not merit, the latter clause of that verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house,” i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and sustain them against his will.

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the virtues of giving charity. Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs acts of charity in secret is greater than Moses, our teacher. Whereas with regard to Moses, our teacher, it is written: “For I was afraid of the anger and the wrath” (Deuteronomy 9:19), with regard to one who performs acts of charity it is written: “A gift in secret pacifies anger, and a present in the bosom fierce wrath” (Proverbs 21:14). The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with a statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A secret gift pacifies anger, but it does not pacify wrath, as it is stated: “And a present in the bosom fierce wrath,” meaning that although a present is in the bosom, i.e., even if one gives charity in secret, nevertheless fierce wrath can still harm him. There are those who say that Rabbi Yitzḥak says as follows: Any judge who accepts a bribe brings fierce wrath upon the world, as it is stated: “And a present in the bosom fierce wrath.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who gives a peruta to a poor person receives six blessings, and whoever consoles him with words of comfort and encouragement receives eleven blessings. The Gemara explains: One who gives a peruta to a poor person receives six blessings, as it is written: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him” (Isaiah 58:7). And the next verses list six blessings: “Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your health shall spring forth speedily, and your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rearguard. Then, shall you call, and the Lord shall answer; you shall cry, and He shall say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:8–9). And whoever consoles a poor person with words of comfort and encouragement receives eleven blessings, as it is stated: “And if you draw out your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul, then shall your light shine in darkness, and your gloom shall be as the noonday. And the Lord shall guide you continually, and satisfy your thirst in drought… And they that shall be of you shall build the old waste places, you shall raise up the foundations of many generations” (Isaiah 58:10–12). And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who pursues charity and mercy finds life, charity, and honor” (Proverbs 21:21)? Is this to say that because one has pursued charity, he himself shall find charity? That is, shall the reward of one who has always given charity be that he will eventually become poor and other people will act charitably toward him? Rather, the verse serves to tell you that with regard to anyone who pursues charity, giving to the poor and leading others to do so, the Holy One, Blessed be He, furnishes him with money with which to perform his acts of charity.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Anyone who is accustomed to performing acts of charity merits blessing; he will have sons who are masters of wisdom, masters of wealth, and masters of aggada. The Gemara explains: Masters of wisdom, as it is written: “He who pursues charity and mercy, finds life” (Proverbs 21:21), and with regard to wisdom it is written: “He who finds Me, finds life” (Proverbs 8:35). Masters of wealth, as it is written: “He who pursues charity and mercy finds charity,” meaning he will be able to give charity. Masters of aggada, as it is written: “He who pursues charity and mercy, finds honor.” And how do we know that this refers to masters of aggada? It is written here “honor,” and it is written there: “The wise shall inherit honor” (Proverbs 3:35).

§ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: An opponent may bring an argument against you and say to you: If your God loves the poor, for what reason does He not support them Himself? In such a case, say to him: He commands us to act as His agents in sustaining the poor, so that through them we will be credited with the performance of mitzvot and therefore be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. And this is the question that Turnus Rufus the wicked asked Rabbi Akiva: If your God loves the poor, for what reason does He not support them Himself? Rabbi Akiva said to him: He commands us to sustain the poor, so that through them and the charity we give them we will be saved from the judgment of Gehenna. Turnus Rufus said to Rabbi Akiva: On the contrary, it is this charity which condemns you, the Jewish people, to Gehenna because you give it. I will illustrate this to you with a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his slave and put him in prison and ordered that he should not be fed or given to drink. And one person went ahead and fed him and gave him to drink. If the king heard about this, would he not be angry with that person? And you, after all, are called slaves, as it is stated: “For the children of Israel are slaves to Me” (Leviticus 25:55). If God decreed that a certain person should be impoverished, one who gives him charity defies the will of God. Rabbi Akiva said to Turnus Rufus: I will illustrate the opposite to you with a different parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his son and put him in prison and ordered that he should not be fed or given to drink. And one person went ahead and fed him and gave him to drink. If the king heard about this once his anger abated, would he not react by sending that person a gift? And we are called sons, as it is written: “You are sons of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Turnus Rufus said to him: You are called sons and you are called slaves. When you fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, you are called sons; when you do not fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, you are called slaves. And since now you do not fulfill the will of the Omnipresent, the parable that I offered is more apt. Rabbi Akiva said to him: The verse states: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house?” (Isaiah 58:7). When do we bring the poor that are cast out into our houses? Now, when we have to billet the Roman soldiers in our homes; and about that very time, the verse states: “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry?”

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shalom taught: Just as a person’s entire livelihood is allocated to him from Rosh HaShana, when God issues His judgments for the entire year, so too are a person’s monetary losses allocated to him from Rosh HaShana. If one merits, the following verse is applied to him: “You shall share your bread with the hungry,” i.e., he will spend the sum allocated to him on gifts of charity; and if he does not merit, the following verse is applied to him: “You shall bring the poor that are cast out to your house, i.e., he will be compelled by the government to billet soldiers in his house and feed them against his will. It is like this incident involving the nephews of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who once saw in a dream that his nephews were destined to lose seven hundred dinars over the course of the year. He encouraged them and took money from them for charity, and they were left with seventeen dinars out of the seven hundred. When Yom Kippur eve arrived, the government sent messengers who came and took the remaining seventeen dinars. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them: Do not fear that they will take even more from you; they took from you the seventeen dinars that were still with you. The nephews said to him: How did you know? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them: I saw a dream about you, and he related his dream to them. They said to him: And why did you not tell us about the dream? Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them: I said, It is better that they perform a mitzva for its own sake. Had you known from the start that you were fated to lose that amount of money, the mitzva would not have been performed purely for its own sake.

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa was once climbing up a ladder when his foot slipped and he almost fell. He said: Now, is the one who hates us, a euphemism for himself, liable like Shabbat desecrators and idol worshippers, who are subject to death by stoning, which is similar to death by falling, the punishment that Rav Pappa narrowly escaped? Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti said to Rav Pappa: Perhaps a poor person once approached you and you did not sustain him, and therefore you were given a glimpse of the punishment that you actually deserve. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Anyone who turns his eyes away from one seeking charity is considered as if he worships idols. From where is this derived? It is written here: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart…and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). And it is written there: “Certain base men have gone out…and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:14). Just as there, the base men sin with idolatry, so too here, the base thought is treated like idolatry. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: All acts of charity and kindness that Jews perform in this world make great peace and are great intercessors between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, as it is stated: “So said the Lord, enter not into a house of mourning, neither go to lament nor bemoan them, for I have taken away My peace from this people, says the Lord, both kindness and mercy” (Jeremiah 16:5). “Kindness”; this is referring to acts of kindness. “Mercy”; this is referring to acts of charity. This indicates that when there is kindness and mercy, God is at peace with His people. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Great is charity in that it advances the redemption, as it is stated: “So said the Lord, uphold justice and do charity, for My salvation is near to come, and My righteousness to be revealed” (Isaiah 56:1). He would say: Ten strong entities were created in the world, one stronger than the other. A mountain is strong, but iron, which is stronger, cleaves it. Iron is strong, but fire melts it. Fire is strong, but water extinguishes it. Water is strong, but clouds bear it. Clouds are strong, but wind disperses them. Wind is strong, but the human body withstands it. The human body is strong, but fear breaks it. Fear is strong, but wine dispels it. Wine is strong, but sleep drives it off. And death is stronger than them all, but charity saves a person from death, as it is written: “And charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2, 11:4). Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, taught: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not like the attribute of flesh and blood. An illustration of the attribute of flesh and blood is that when a person brings a great gift to the king, it is uncertain whether the king will accept it from him or will not accept it from him. And if you say that the king will accept it from him, it is uncertain whether the person who brought the gift will eventually see the face of the king, or will not see the face of the king. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act in this way. Even when a person gives a mere peruta to a poor person, he merits to receive the Divine Presence, as it is stated: “As for me, I will behold Your face through charity; I will be satisfied, when I awake, with Your likeness” (Psalms 17:15). It is related that Rabbi Elazar would first give a peruta to a poor person and only then would he pray. He said: As it is written in the same verse: “I will behold Your face through charity.” The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will be satisfied, when I awake, with your likeness”? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: These are Torah scholars, who in pursuit of their studies banish sleep from their eyes in this world, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, satiates them with the radiance of the Divine Presence in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that graciously gives to the poor makes a loan to the Lord, and that which he has given, He will pay him back” (Proverbs 19:17)? How can it be that one is considered to have granted a loan to God? Were it not explicitly written in the verse, it would be impossible to say this, that somebody who is gracious to a poor person is seen as lending to God. It would be impertinent, since “the borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7), as it were. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a contradiction between two texts. In one place it is written: “Riches profit not on the day of wrath, but charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 11:4), and elsewhere it is written: “Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2). Why is it necessary to have these two verses about charity, that it delivers from death? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba continues: One verse serves to teach that charity delivers from an unnatural death in this world, and one verse serves to teach that charity delivers from the judgment of Gehenna in the World-to-Come. And in which of the verses is that charity which delivers from the judgment of Gehenna mentioned? It is in that verse in which “wrath” is written, as with regard to the day of judgment it is written: “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah 1:15). And which type of charity is that which delivers from an unnatural death? It is the type in which one gives the charity without knowing to whom he gave it, and the other one takes it without knowing from whom he took it. The Gemara explains: One gives it without knowing to whom he gave it, this serves to exclude the practice of Mar Ukva, who would personally give charity to poor people without their knowing he was the donor. The other one takes it without knowing from whom he took it; this serves to exclude the practice of Rabbi Abba, who would render his money ownerless, so that poor people would come and take it without his knowing whom he helped, although they would know from whom the money came. The Gemara asks: Rather, how then should one act to conceal his own identity and also remain ignorant of the identities of the recipients? The Gemara answers: The best method is to put the money into the charity purse. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: What should a person do to have male offspring? Rabbi Eliezer says: He should distribute his money liberally among the poor. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should gladden his wife before engaging in the mitzva of conjugal relations. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A person should not donate a peruta to the charity purse unless a great and trusted individual like Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon is appointed as supervisor over it. This seems to indicate that putting money into the charity box is not always preferred. The Gemara answers: When we say that putting money into the charity box is the preferred way to give charity, this is referring to when a man like Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon is appointed as supervisor over it. The Gemara discusses other matters concerning charity. Rabbi Abbahu says: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, with what shall the horn of Israel be exalted? God said to him: With the passage of “When you raise,” i.e., Israel will be exalted by way of the donations and charity that they will give, as it is stated: “When you raise the heads of the children of Israel…then shall they give” (Exodus 30:12). And Rabbi Abbahu says: They asked King Solomon, son of David: How far does the power of charity extend? King Solomon said to them: Go out and see what my father David explained: “He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor, his righteousness endures forever, his horn shall be exalted with honor” (Psalms 112:9). Rabbi Abba said: It is derived from here how far the power of charity extends: “He shall dwell on high, his place of defense shall be the fortress of rocks; his bread shall be given, his water shall be sure” (Isaiah 33:16). What is the reason that “He shall dwell on high, his place of defense shall be the fortress of rocks”? Because “his bread shall be given” to the poor, and “his water shall be sure,” i.e., it shall be given faithfully and he can be trusted in the matter. And Rabbi Abbahu says: They asked King Solomon: Who is one who is destined for the World-to-Come? King Solomon said to them: All those about whom it is stated: “And before His Elders will be His glory” (Isaiah 24:23), referring to those who are honored in this world due to their wisdom. This is like the incident involving Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, who became ill and fainted. When he returned to good health, his father said to him: What did you see when you were not conscious? Yosef said to him: I saw an inverted world. Those above, i.e., those who are considered important in this world, were below, insignificant, while those below, i.e., those who are insignificant in this world, were above. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You have seen a clear world. The world you have seen is the true world, one in which one’s spiritual and moral standing determines his true importance. Rabbi Yehoshua further asked him: And how did you see us, the Torah scholars, there? Yosef said to him: Just as we are important here, we are important there. Yosef added: And I heard that they were saying in that world: Happy is the one who arrives with his studies in hand. And I also heard that they were saying: Those executed by the government enjoy such exalted status that no one can stand in their section. The Gemara asks: Who are these martyrs to whom Yosef was referring? If we say that he was referring to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, who were killed by the Romans, this cannot be: Is their elevated status due only to the fact that they were martyred by the Roman government and nothing more? These men were exceptional in their piety and sanctity during their lives as well. Therefore it is obvious that even without their martyrdom they would be greater than other people. Rather, it is referring to those like the martyrs of Lod, who died for the sanctification of God’s name but were not Torah scholars.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to his students: My sons, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin” (Proverbs 14:34)? Rabbi Eliezer answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are the people of Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth?” (I Chronicles 17:21). “But the kindness of the peoples is sin,” meaning that all the acts of charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is counted as a sin for them, since they perform them only to elevate themselves in prestige, as it is stated: “That they may sacrifice offerings of pleasing aroma to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons” (Ezra 6:10). Even though they donated offerings, they did so only for their own benefit. The Gemara asks: And if one acts this way, is it not full-fledged charity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my sons will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will merit a share in the World-to-Come, this person is a full-fledged righteous person, as far as that mitzva is concerned, even though he has his own welfare in mind? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the statement that he is considered absolutely righteous is with regard to a Jew; while there, the statement that such benefaction is not credited as charity is with regard to a gentile. Rabbi Yehoshua answered Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s challenge to interpret the verse and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are the people of Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth.” “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” means that all the acts of charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is counted as a sin for them, since they perform them only to perpetuate their dominion, as it is stated by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, and break off your sins by charity, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; that there may be an extension of your serenity” (Daniel 4:24). Since this is the argument that persuaded Nebuchadnezzar, it would appear that his actual motive was his own benefit. Rabban Gamliel answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are the people of Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth.” “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” means that all the acts of charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is counted as a sin for them, since they perform them only in order to act haughtily through them, and whoever acts haughtily falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “The proud and haughty one, scorner is his name, acts in arrogant wrath” (Proverbs 21:24). And wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah 1:15). Rabban Gamliel said: We still need to hear what the Moda’i has to say, as Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i says: “Righteousness exalts a nation”; these are the people of Israel, as it is written: “And who is like your people Israel, one nation on the earth.” “But the kindness of the peoples is sin” means that all the acts of charity and kindness that the nations of the world perform is counted as a sin for them, since they perform them only to taunt us with them, as it is stated that the Babylonian officer Nebuzaradan said: “The Lord has brought it, and done according as He has said; because you have sinned against the Lord and have not obeyed His voice, therefore this matter is come upon you” (Jeremiah 40:3). Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana answered and said: “Righteousness exalts a nation and kindness” is referring to Israel; and in addition, “of the peoples is sin.” Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to his students: The statement of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana appears to be more precise than both my statement and your statements, because he assigns both righteousness and kindness to Israel, and sin to the peoples of the world. The Gemara asks: By inference, it appears that he, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, also offered an interpretation of this verse. What is it? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to them that the verse should be understood as follows: Just as a sin-offering atones for Israel, so charity atones for the nations of the world.

It is related that Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, king of Persia, sent four hundred dinars to Rabbi Ami, but he did not accept them. She then sent them to Rava, and he accepted them for the sake of peace with the kingdom. Rabbi Ami heard what Rava had done and was angry. He said: Does Rava not accept the lesson of the verse: “When the boughs are withered, they shall be broken off; the women shall come and set them on fire” (Isaiah 27:11), meaning that when righteousness has ceased from a particular nation, it is time for its citizens to be punished, and therefore we should not help them perform any meritorious deeds, which would delay their punishment? The Gemara asks: And why did Rava accept the money? The Gemara answers: He did so for the sake of peace with the kingdom. The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Ami not also see the importance of accepting the money for the sake of peace with the kingdom? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ami maintains that Rava should have distributed the money to the gentile poor rather than to the Jewish poor, as it is a disgrace to the Jews to require the kindness of the nations of the world in order to support their poor. The Gemara comments: In fact, Rava also gave the money to the gentile poor and not to the Jewish poor. And Rabbi Ami got angry because those who reported the story to him did not conclude it before him; consequently, Rav Ami was not informed that Rava had indeed given the money to the gentile poor.

§ In connection with Rabbi Yosei’s statement that Sumakhos’s words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages. Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: “And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy. Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited in the name of the well-known tanna Rabbi Akiva bar Yosef in accordance with his statement. It certainly cannot be maintained that the first Sage is similar in his nature to the illustrious Rabbi Akiva, so he must have arrived at his statement through prophecy. Rav Ashi said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and with regard to this issue the first Sage has the same understanding as Rabbi Akiva. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai in accordance with his statement. The Sage makes a statement that corresponds to words pronounced in Heaven, which, without prophecy, is beyond human capability. The Gemara states: But perhaps he arrived at this idea by chance, without the assistance of prophecy, like a blind man who makes his way through a skylight. A blind man cannot deliberately find a skylight; therefore, his finding it occurs by chance. The Gemara answers: But does the Sage not offer a reason for his statement? The fact that he demonstrates an understanding of the issue indicates that he does not arrive at his idea by chance, but rather by prophecy. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to imbeciles and children. The Gemara explains: In what way was prophecy given to imbeciles? It was like this incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, who was standing in the street [beristeka] of Meḥoza when he heard a certain imbecile say: The head of the yeshiva who will be appointed in Mata Meḥasya signs his name Tavyumei. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to himself: Who among the Sages signs his name Tavyumei? Nobody but me. Conclude from the statement by the imbecile that my hour has arrived, and I will reap success in this matter. He arose and went to Mata Meḥasya. By the time he arrived, the Sages had already decided to appoint Rav Aḥa of Difti as the head of the yeshiva. As soon as the Sages heard that Mar bar Rav Ashi had arrived, they determined not to proceed with their appointment without the approval of an important figure such as him. They sent a pair of Sages to him to consult with him, and he detained them. They again sent a pair of Sages to him, and he detained them as well. This continued until they completed a quorum of ten Sages. Once they reached ten men, Mar bar Rav Ashi opened his lecture, taught, and expounded. He did not speak earlier because one should not open a lecture during kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during the months of Elul and Adar, when less than ten men are present. He was then appointed as head of the yeshiva. Understanding that he had been passed over for the position, Rav Aḥa of Difti read about himself the rabbinic aphorism: Anyone who is treated poorly will not soon be treated well; and anyone who is treated well will not soon be treated poorly. Rav Aḥa understood that he had lost the chance to be appointed, whereas Mar bar Rav Ashi had the good fortune to be appointed, and would remain in his position. And in what way was prophecy given to children? It was like this incident involving the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, who when she was a child was sitting on her father’s lap while he sat and learned. Rava and Rami bar Ḥama were sitting before him. Rav Ḥisda jokingly said to his daughter: Which of them would you want as a husband? She said: I want both of them. Rava said: And I will be last. And this is what happened; first she married Rami bar Ḥama, and when he died she married Rava. Having already cited one statement of Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa, the Gemara cites another statement in his name: Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: Before a person eats and drinks he has two hearts, meaning his heart is unsettled because he is distracted by hunger. But after he eats and drinks he has only one heart, as it is stated: “A hollow [nevuv] man is two-hearted” (Job 11:12). How is it indicated that “nevuv” means hungry? As it is written concerning the altar: “Nevuv luḥot” (Exodus 27:8), which we translate into Aramaic as: Hollow with planks, meaning that a hollow person, i.e., one who has not yet eaten, is two-hearted. The Gemara continues to discuss the meaning of nevuv, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: With regard to one who is accustomed to wine, although his heart, i.e., his mind, is closed like a virgin, wine opens it, as it is stated: “And new wine opens [yenovev] the virgins” (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev is used here in the sense of clearing out a space: Even if one’s heart and mind are closed, wine will open them to understanding.

§ The Gemara now begins a general discussion about sacred writings. The Sages taught: A person may attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one scroll; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Torah should be a scroll by itself, the books of the Prophets a scroll by themselves, and the books of the Writings a scroll by themselves. And the Sages say: Each one of the books of the Prophets and the Writings should be a scroll by itself. And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who had eight books of the Prophets attached together as one scroll, and he did this with the approval of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. And others say that each and every one of the books was a scroll by itself, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There was an incident where they brought before us the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings attached together as one scroll and we ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and deemed them fit. The Gemara states: When different books are included in the same scroll, four empty lines of space should be left between each book of the Torah, and similarly between one book of the Prophets and another. But between each of the books of the Twelve Prophets only three empty lines should be left, because they are considered one book. And the scribe may finish a book at the bottom of one column and begin the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space in between. The Sages taught in a baraita: One who wishes to attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one scroll may attach them. He should leave enough empty parchment at the beginning of the scroll for winding around the pole to which the beginning of the scroll is fastened. And at the end of the scroll he should leave enough empty parchment for winding around the entire circumference of the rolled-up scroll. And he may finish a book at the bottom of one column and begin the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space between them. And if he wishes to cut the scroll, he may cut it. The Gemara is surprised at this: What is the tanna saying? Why is mention made here of cutting the scroll? The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is saying: He arranges the text so that if he finishes a book at the bottom of one column, he begins the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space, so that if he wishes to cut the scroll, he may cut it. If he does not begin the next book at the top of the next column, he will not be able to cut the scroll, because it is not fitting for a scroll to begin with an empty space. The Gemara raises a contradiction between this baraita and another baraita that teaches: Enough parchment should be left at the beginning of the scroll and at its end for winding. The Gemara clarifies: For winding around what? If it means for winding around the pole to which the beginning of the scroll is fastened, this is difficult in light of what is taught in the first baraita, that at the end of the scroll enough parchment should be left for winding around the entire circumference of the scroll. And if it means for winding around the entire circumference, this is difficult in light of what is taught in the first baraita that at the beginning of the scroll enough parchment should be left for winding around the pole. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The tanna teaches the halakha disjunctively, referring to two separate cases. He issues a general statement requiring that enough parchment be left for winding as needed: At the beginning of the pole, enough to wind around the pole, and at the end of the scroll, enough to wind around the circumference. Rav Ashi said: When that second baraita is taught, indicating that the same measure of parchment is left at both the beginning and the end of the scroll, it was referring to a Torah scroll, as it is taught in a baraita: All other scrolls are wound from the beginning to the end around a single pole, but a Torah scroll is wound from both ends to the middle around two poles, one of which he attaches at this end of the scroll and the other at the other end. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: This is how the scribes in Jerusalem made their scrolls, i.e., with poles at either end so that it could be rolled to the middle.

§ The Sages taught: A Torah scroll should not be made in such a manner that its length, i.e., its height, is greater than its circumference when it is rolled up; nor should its circumference be greater than its length. They asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: What should the size of a Torah scroll be? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: If it was written on a hide that was treated with gallnuts [gevil ] it should be six handbreadths long. They asked him further: How much should it be if it was written on ordinary parchment [kelaf ]? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I do not know. It is related that Rav Huna wrote seventy Torah scrolls himself, and it happened for him only once that the length and the circumference were equal. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov wrote one Torah scroll on calf hide and it happened to have the same length and circumference. The Sages looked at him and his achievement with jealousy, and he died from their envious gaze. The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna: Rabbi Ami wrote four hundred Torah scrolls. Rav Hamnuna said to them: Perhaps he wrote the verse: “Moses commanded us the Torah” (Deuteronomy 33:4) four hundred times, rather than four hundred complete Torah scrolls, as it is difficult to say that he could have written so many, even over a lifetime. Similarly, Rava said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yannai planted four hundred vineyards. Rava said to him: Perhaps he did not plant large vineyards, but only the smallest possible vineyards recognized by halakha, which are composed of two vines facing another two vines, with a fifth one protruding like a tail, extending out beyond the square. The Gemara raises an objection to what is taught with regard to the length of a Torah scroll from a baraita: With regard to the Ark of the Covenant that Moses fashioned, its length was two and one-half cubits, its width was one and one-half cubits, and its height was one and one-half cubits (see Exodus 25:10), the cubit used for these measurements being six handbreadths. Therefore, the Ark was fifteen handbreadths long, nine handbreadths wide, and nine handbreadths high. The baraita continues: And as for the tablets, their length was six handbreadths, their width was six handbreadths, and their thickness was three handbreadths. The tablets were placed along the length of the Ark, one next to the other. If so, how much space did the tablets occupy along the length of the Ark? Twelve handbreadths, as each tablet was six handbreadths long. Three handbreadths were left there along the length of the Ark, for a total of fifteen handbreadths. Deduct a handbreadth from them: One-half a handbreadth for this wall, namely, the thickness of the wooden Ark itself, and one-half a handbreadth for the other wall. Accordingly, two handbreadths were left there, in which the Torah scroll written by Moses lay. What biblical source indicates that a Torah scroll was placed there? As it is stated: “There was nothing in the Ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there” (I Kings 8:9). What does “there was nothing in the Ark except” mean? This is an example of a restriction following a restriction, as both terms, “nothing” and “except,” indicate that the Ark was empty. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restriction following a restriction serves only to amplify and include other matters. In this case, it serves to include a Torah scroll that lies in the Ark. The baraita continues: With this explanation you have accounted for the entire length of the Ark; go now and account for the width of the Ark, which was nine handbreadths. How much space did the tablets occupy of the width of the Ark, which was nine handbreadths wide? Six handbreadths; therefore, three handbreadths were left there along the width of the Ark. Deduct a handbreadth from them: One-half a handbreadth for the thickness of this wall and one-half a handbreadth for the thickness of the other wall. Accordingly, two handbreadths were left there. What was their purpose? These were necessary so that the Torah scroll would be able to go in and out without being pressed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: The cubit used for all the measurements of the Ark was five handbreadths long. There-fore, the Ark was twelve and one-half handbreadths long, seven and one-half handbreadths wide, and seven and one-half handbreadths high. And as for the tablets, their length was six handbreadths, their width was six handbreadths, and their thickness was three handbreadths, and they were placed along the length of the Ark, one next to the other. If so, how much space did the tablets occupy along the length of the Ark? Twelve handbreadths, so that one-half a handbreadth was left there, which is two fingerbreadths. One fingerbreadth of those two was for the thickness of this wall and one fingerbreadth of those two was for the thickness of the other wall. With this explanation, you have accounted for the entire length of the Ark; go now and account for the width of the Ark, which was seven and one-half handbreadths. How much space did the tablets occupy in the Ark? Six handbreadths, meaning that one and one-half handbreadths were left there along the width of the Ark. Deduct one-half a handbreadth, one and one-half fingerbreadths for the thickness of this wall, and one and one-half fingerbreadths for the thickness of the other wall. Accordingly, one handbreadth was left there in which the silver columns were placed on either side of the tablets, as it is stated: “King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the timbers of Lebanon; he made its columns of silver, its back of gold, its seat of purple” (Song of Songs 3:9–10). This is understood as an allusion to the Ark of the Covenant. And the chest in which the Philistines sent the gift to the God of Israel was placed alongside the Ark, as it is stated: “And put the golden devices which you are restoring to Him for a guilt-offering in a chest by the side of it, and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8). And upon this chest lay the Torah scroll, as it is stated: “Take this Torah scroll and put it at the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 31:26). This means that it was placed at the side of the Ark, and not inside it. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of that which is stated: “There was nothing in the Ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there,” which, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, teaches that something else was in the Ark besides the tablets themselves? It serves to include the broken pieces of the first set of tablets, which were placed in the Ark. Having cited the baraita, the Gemara now presents its objection to what was taught earlier with regard to the dimensions of a Torah scroll: And if it should enter your mind to say, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held, that the circumference of a Torah scroll is six handbreadths, now since any cylindrical object having a circumference of three handbreadths has a diameter of one handbreadth, a Torah scroll with a circumference of six handbreadths has a diameter of two handbreadths. And since a Torah scroll is wound to the middle, since it is rolled from both sides, it must take up more than two handbreadths due to the space between the sheets of parchment and the double rolling. According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the Torah scroll was placed inside the ark, how did the scroll fit in the remaining two handbreadths [pushkei] of space in the Ark? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The scroll of the Temple courtyard, which was kept in the Ark, was wound to its beginning, i.e., it had only a single pole, so that its circumference was only two handbreadths. The Gemara asks: But still, how does an item that is two handbreadths wide fit into a space that is precisely two handbreadths? It would be impossible to fit it in. Rav Ashi said: A small section of the scroll was wound separately and then placed on top of the scroll. Having concluded its current discussion, the Gemara now addresses the details of the aforementioned baraita and asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the Torah scroll rested on the chest that came from the Philistines, where was the Torah scroll placed before the chest arrived? The Gemara answers: A shelf protruded from the Ark and the Torah scroll rested on it. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the Torah scroll rested inside the Ark, what does he do with this verse: “Take this Torah scroll and put it at the side of the Ark” (Deuteronomy 31:26)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that the Torah scroll was placed at the side of the tablets, and that it was not placed between the two tablets, but it was actually placed inside the Ark at the side of the tablets. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, where were the silver columns placed? The Gemara answers: Outside the Ark. The Gemara further asks: And from where does Rabbi Meir derive that the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark, as the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda learns this: “There was nothing in the Ark except” (I Kings 8:9), is needed by Rabbi Meir to teach that the Torah scroll was placed there? The Gemara answers: He derives this point from what Rav Huna expounded, as Rav Huna says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Ark of God, whereupon is called the Name, the name of the Lord of hosts that sits upon the cherubs” (II Samuel 6:2)? The phrase “the name, the name of the Lord” teaches that both the second tablets and the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark. The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, derive from this verse? The Gemara responds: He requires that text for that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: This teaches that the ineffable name of God and all of His appellations were placed in the Ark. The Gemara inquires: And doesn’t the other Sage, Rabbi Meir, also require it for that? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, from where does he derive that the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark? The Gemara expounds: He derives this from that which Rav Yosef taught, as Rav Yosef taught a baraita: The verses state: “At that time the Lord said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first…and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1–2). This teaches that both the second set of tablets and the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark. The Gemara asks: And what does the other one, Rabbi Yehuda, learn from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which Reish Lakish teaches, as Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is stated: “The first tablets, which you broke [asher shibbarta]”? These words allude to the fact that God approved of Moses’ action, as if the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be straight [yishar koḥakha] because you broke them.

§ The Sages taught: The order of the books of the Prophets when they are attached together is as follows: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets. The Gemara asks: Consider: Hosea preceded some of the other prophets whose books are included in the Bible, as it is written: “The Lord spoke first to Hosea” (Hosea 1:2). At first glance this verse is difficult: But did God speak first with Hosea, and not with any other prophet before him? Weren’t there many prophets between Moses and Hosea? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He was the first of four prophets who prophesied in that period, and they were: Hosea and Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Accordingly, Hosea preceded those three prophets; and the book of Hosea as well should precede the books of those prophets. The Gemara answers: Since his prophecy is written together with those of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in one book of the Twelve Prophets, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, he is counted with them. The Gemara inquires: But let the book of Hosea be written separately and let it precede the others. The Gemara answers: Were it written separately, since it is small it would be lost. The Gemara further asks: Consider: Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel; let the book of Isaiah precede the books of those other prophets. The Gemara answers: Since the book of Kings ends with the destruction of the Temple, and the book of Jeremiah deals entirely with prophecies of the destruction, and the book of Ezekiel begins with the destruction of the Temple but ends with consolation and the rebuilding of the Temple, and Isaiah deals entirely with consolation, as most of his prophecies refer to the redemption, we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation. This accounts for the order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. The baraita continues: The order of the Writings is: Ruth and the book of Psalms, and Job and Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations; Daniel and the Scroll of Esther; and Ezra and Chronicles. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Job lived in the time of Moses, let the book of Job precede the others. The Gemara answers: We do not begin with suffering, i.e., it is inappropriate to start the Writings with a book that deals so extensively with suffering. The Gemara asks: But the book of Ruth, with which the Writings opens, is also about suffering, since it describes the tragedies that befell the family of Elimelech. The Gemara answers: This is suffering which has a future of hope and redemption. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why was she named Ruth, spelled reish, vav, tav? Because there descended from her David who sated, a word with the root reish, vav, heh, the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises. The baraita now considers the authors of the biblical books: And who wrote the books of the Bible? Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, and the portion of Balaam in the Torah, and the book of Job. Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses in the Torah, which describe the death of Moses. Samuel wrote his own book, the book of Judges, and the book of Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten elders of previous generations, assembling a collection that included compositions of others along with his own. He included psalms authored by Adam the first man, by Melchizedek king of Salem, and by Abraham, and by Moses, and by Heman, and by Jeduthun, and by Asaph, and by the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book, and the book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote the following, and a mnemonic to remember which books they wrote is yod, mem, shin, kuf: Isaiah [Yeshaya], Proverbs [Mishlei], Song of Songs [Shir HaShirim], and Ecclesiastes [Kohelet]. The members of the Great Assembly wrote the following, and a mnemonic to remember these books is kuf, nun, dalet, gimmel: Ezekiel [Yeḥezkel ], and the Twelve Prophets [Sheneim Asar], Daniel [Daniel ], and the Scroll of Esther [Megillat Ester]. Ezra wrote his own book and the genealogy of the book of Chronicles until his period. The Gemara comments: This supports Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael until he established his own genealogy, and after that he ascended. This genealogy is what is written in the book of Chronicles. And who completed the book of Chronicles for the generations following Ezra? Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah. The Gemara elaborates on the particulars of this baraita: The Master said above that Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses of the Torah. The Gemara comments: This baraita is taught in accordance with the one who says that it was Joshua who wrote the last eight verses in the Torah. This point is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it is taught in another baraita: “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5); is it possible that after Moses died, he himself wrote “And Moses died there”? Rather, Moses wrote the entire Torah until this point, and Joshua wrote from this point forward; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And some say that Rabbi Neḥemya stated this opinion. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible that the Torah scroll was missing a single letter? But it is written: “Take this Torah scroll” (Deuteronomy 31:26), indicating that the Torah was complete as is and that nothing further would be added to it. Rather, until this point the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated after Him and wrote the text. From this point forward, with respect to Moses’ death, the Holy One, Blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote with tears. The fact that the Torah was written by way of dictation can be seen later, as it is stated concerning the writing of the Prophets: “And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink in the scroll” (Jeremiah 36:18). The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba says that Rav Giddel says that Rav says: When the Torah is read publicly in the synagogue, one person reads the last eight verses in the Torah, and that section may not be divided between two readers? Shall we say that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as according to Rabbi Shimon these verses are an integral part of the Torah, written by Moses just like the rest? The Gemara answers: Even if you say that this was said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since they differ from the rest of the Torah in one way, as Moses wrote them with tears, they differ from the rest of the Torah in this way as well, i.e., they may not be divided between two readers. It is stated in the baraita that Joshua wrote his own book. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written toward the end of the book: “And Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died” (Joshua 24:29)? Is it possible that Joshua wrote this? The Gemara answers: Aaron’s son Eleazar completed it. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it also written: “And Eleazar, son of Aaron, died” (Joshua 24:33)? The Gemara answers: Pinehas completed it. It is also stated in the baraita that Samuel wrote his own book. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Samuel died” (I Samuel 28:3)? The Gemara answers: Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it. It is further stated that David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten elders, whom the baraita proceeds to list. The Gemara asks: But then let it also count Ethan the Ezrahite among the contributors to the book of Psalms, as it is he who is credited with Psalms, chapter 89. Rav says: Ethan the Ezrahite is the same person as Abraham. Proof for this is the fact that it is written here: “A Maskil of Ethan the Ezrahite” (Psalms 89:1), and it is written there: “Who raised up one from the east [mizraḥ], whom righteousness met wherever he set his foot” (Isaiah 41:2). The latter verse is understood as referring to Abraham, who came from the east, and for that reason he is called Ethan the Ezrahite in the former verse. The Gemara asks: The baraita counts Moses among the ten elders whose works are included in the book of Psalms, and it also counts Heman. But doesn’t Rav say: The Heman mentioned in the Bible (I Kings 5:11) is the same person as Moses? This is proven by the fact that it is written here: “Heman” (Psalms 88:1), which is Aramaic for trusted, and it is written there about Moses: “For he is the trusted one in all My house” (Numbers 12:7). The Gemara answers: There were two Hemans, one of whom was Moses, and the other a Temple singer from among the descendants of Samuel. The baraita further states that Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, the portion of Balaam, and the book of Job. This supports Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma, as Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma says: Job lived in the time of Moses. It is written here with regard to Job: “Oh, that my words were written now [eifo]” (Job 19:23), and it is written there in Moses’ words to God: “For in what shall it be known here [eifo]” (Exodus 33:16). The unusual use of the word eifo in these two places indicates that Job and Moses lived in the same generation. The Gemara comments: But if that is the proof, say that Job lived in the time of Isaac, as it is written in connection with Isaac: “Who then [eifo] is he that has taken venison” (Genesis 27:33). Or say that he lived in the time of Jacob, as it is written with respect to Jacob: “If it must be so now [eifo], do this” (Genesis 43:11). Or say that he lived in the time of Joseph, as it is written with respect to Joseph: “Tell me, I pray you, where [eifo] are they feeding their flocks?” (Genesis 37:16). The Gemara answers: It could not enter your mind to say this, as it is written in the continuation of the previously mentioned verse: “Oh, that my words were inscribed [veyuḥaku] in a book” (Job 19:23), and it is Moses who is called the inscriber, as it is written with regard to him: “And he provided the first part for himself, for there was the inscriber’s [meḥokek] portion reserved” (Deuteronomy 33:21). Rava says: Job lived at the time of the spies whom Moses sent to scout the land of Canaan. This is proven by the fact that it is written here: “There was a man in the land of Utz, whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), and it is written there in the account of the spies: “Whether there are trees [eitz] in it” (Numbers 13:20). The Gemara asks: Is it comparable? Here the word that is used is Utz, whereas there the word is eitz. The Gemara answers: This is what Moses said to Israel, i.e., to the spies: Is that man named Job still alive, he whose years are as long as the years of a tree and who protects his generation like a tree? This is why the allusion to him here is through the word eitz, rather than Utz. The Gemara relates that one of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani and he sat and said: Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: “There was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did indeed exist. The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the words “there was” prove that Job existed, what shall we say about the parable that Natan the prophet presented to David: “There were two men in one city; the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little lamb, which he had bought and reared” (II Samuel 12:3)? Was there really such a person? Rather, it was merely a parable; here too it is merely a parable. The Gemara answers: If so, that it is a parable, why state his name and the name of his city? Rather, Job was clearly a real person. The Gemara cites another opinion with regard to the time when Job lived. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Job was among those who ascended from the exile to Eretz Yisrael at the start of the Second Temple period, and his house of study was in Tiberias. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: The days of Job’s life extended from when Israel entered Egypt until they left, indicating that this is the period during which he lived and not, as suggested, in the early days of the Second Temple. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita means that the duration of Job’s life lasted as long as from when Israel entered Egypt until when they left, but not that he lived during that specific time frame. The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita against the notion that Job was a Jew: Seven prophets prophesied to the nations of the world, and they are: Balaam and his father Beor, and Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite, which indicates that Job was not Jewish. He said to him: And according to your reasoning that Job could not have been Jewish because he prophesied to the nations of the world, was Elihu ben Barachel not a Jew? Is it not written: “Of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2), meaning Abraham? Rather, one must explain that Elihu is included in this list because he prophesied to the nations of the world; and so too it may be maintained that Job is included in this list, even though he is Jewish, because he prophesied to the nations of the world. The Gemara asks: But did not all the other prophets also prophesy to the nations of the world? Why then are only these seven mentioned? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the other prophets, their main prophecies were directed to Israel, whereas here, with regard to these seven prophets, their main prophecies were directed to the nations of the world. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a different baraita: There was a certain pious man among the nations of the world and his name was Job, and he came into the world only to receive his reward. The Holy One, Blessed be He, brought afflictions upon him, and he began to blaspheme and curse. The Holy One, Blessed be He, doubled his reward in this world in order to expel him from the World-to-Come. This baraita states that Job was not a Jew, but rather a gentile. The Gemara responds: The matter of whether or not Job was Jewish is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the period during which Job lived: Rabbi Elazar says: Job lived in the days of the judging of the Judges, as it is stated in connection with Job: “Behold, all you yourselves have seen it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12). Which generation was completely vain? You must say it was the generation of the judging of the Judges, when the people judged the Judges, as will be explained shortly. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, as it is stated: “And in all the world were no women found so beautiful as the daughters of Job” (Job 42:15). In which generation were beautiful women sought? You must say it was the generation of Ahasuerus (Esther, chapter 2). The Gemara asks: But why not say it was in the days of David, as it is written: “And they sought a beautiful maiden” (I Kings 1:3)? The Gemara answers: There, in the time of David, they searched “throughout the territory of Israel” (I Kings 1:3), whereas here, in the time of Ahasuerus, they searched throughout the world, as is similarly stated with regard to Job’s daughters. Rabbi Natan says: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of Sheba, as it is stated: “And Sheba fell upon them, and took them away” (Job 1:15). And the Rabbis say: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of the Chaldeans in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, as it is stated: “The Chaldeans formed three bands” (Job 1:17). And some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. As it is written here: “You speak as one of the loathsome women speaks” (Job 2:10), and it is written there in the account of the incident involving Dina: “He has done a loathsome act in Israel” (Genesis 34:7). This concludes the text of the baraita. The Gemara comments: And all these tanna’im hold that Job was a Jew except for the opinion introduced with the phrase: And some say, according to which Job lived in the time of Jacob, and he was certainly not one of Jacob’s sons. And what is the proof that all these tanna’im maintain that Job was Jewish? As if it should enter your mind to say that he came from the nations of the world, there is a difficulty: After Moses died, did the Divine Presence rest any longer on the nations of the world? But doesn’t the Master say: Moses requested that the Divine Presence not rest again on the nations of the world, and his request was granted to him, as it is stated: “That we shall be differentiated, I and Your people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16), and it is stated there that God acceded to his request. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The generation of Job was awash in licentiousness, as it is stated: “Behold, all of you yourselves have seen [ḥazitem] it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12), and it is written: “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look [veneḥeze] upon you” (Song of Songs 7:1), which teaches that the phrase “you have seen it” connotes a licentious gaze. The Gemara asks: But say that the phrase “you yourselves have seen it” signifies prophecy, as it is written: “The vision [ḥazon] of Isaiah ben Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need the words: “Why then have you become altogether vain”? Rather, the reference must be to inappropriate licentious gazing. And further, with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement in the baraita that the generation of the judging of the Judges was one of vanity, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And it happened in the days of the judging of the Judges” (Ruth 1:1)? This indicates a generation that judged its judges. If a judge would say to the defendant standing before him: Remove the splinter from between your eyes, meaning rid yourself of some minor infraction, the defendant would say to him: Remove the beam from between your eyes, meaning you have committed far more severe sins. If the judge would say to him: “Your silver is become dross” (Isaiah 1:22), meaning your coins are counterfeit, the defendant would say to him: “Your wine is mixed with water” (Isaiah 1:22), meaning you yourself dilute your wine with water and sell it. Since nobody behaved in proper manner, the judges were unable to judge. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who says that the queen of Sheba [malkat Sheva] who came to visit King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 10) was a woman is nothing other than mistaken. What is the meaning of malkat Sheba? The kingdom [malkhuta] of Sheba, as is mentioned in Job: “And Sheba fell on them and took them away” (Job 1:15).

§ Having mentioned the book of Job, the Gemara addresses several matters relating to it. It is stated: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Satan came also among them. And the Lord said to the Satan: From where do you come? And the Satan answered the Lord, and said: From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking through it” (Job 1:6–7). The Satan said to God: Master of the Universe, I have gone to and fro throughout the entire world and I have not found anyone as faithful as Your servant Abraham, to whom You said: “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:17). And even so, when he did not find a place to bury Sarah before he purchased a burial site for four hundred silver shekels, he did not find fault with Your ways or complain about the fact that you had failed to fulfill Your promise. “And the Lord said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8). About this Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That which is stated about Job is greater than that which is stated about Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), with regard to Job it is written: “A perfect and an upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8). The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the aforementioned verse: What is meant by “and turns away from evil”? Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel says: Job was forgiving with his money. It is the way of the world that one pays the storekeeper for even half-peruta of merchandise purchased from him. But if somebody bought an item of such little value from Job, he would forgive him his half-peruta. The Gemara continues to clarify the verses concerning Job. “Then the Satan answered the Lord, and said: Does Job fear God for naught? Have You not made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his cattle is increased in the land” (Job 1:9–10). What is meant by: “You have blessed the work of his hands”? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Anyone who took a peruta from Job was blessed. Not only was Job’s own handiwork blessed, but anybody who received anything from him was also blessed. The Gemara continues with its explication of these verses. What is meant by: “And his livestock is increased [paratz] in the land” (Job 1:10)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: Job’s livestock breached [paretzu] the order of the world. It is the way of the world that wolves kill goats, but in the case of Job’s livestock, the goats killed the wolves. The Gemara continues to relate the Satan’s challenge to God: “But now put forth Your hand, and touch all that he has, and he will curse You to Your face. And the Lord said to the Satan: Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand. And the Satan went out from the presence of the Lord” (Job 1:11–12). The verses relate what then occurred: “Now there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house, and there came a messenger to Job, and said: The oxen were plowing, and the asses were feeding beside them” (Job 1:13–14). The Gemara asks: What is meant by: “The oxen were plowing and the asses were feeding beside them”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Job a taste of the World-to-Come, when plowing and harvesting will take place at the same time. Here too, the oxen plowed and the donkeys grazed on the crops that grew from that effort. The Gemara continues to interpret verses from the book of Job. “While he was yet speaking, there came also another and said: The fire of God has fallen from heaven, and has burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them…While he was yet speaking, there came also another and said: The Chaldeans formed three bands, and fell among the camels, and have carried them away, and have slain the servants with the edge of the sword…While he was yet speaking, there came also another and said: Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house; and, behold, there came a great wind from across the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead…Then Job arose, and rent his coat, and shaved his head, and fell down on the ground and prostrated himself. And he said: I came naked out of my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job sinned not, nor did he lay reproach on God” (Job 1:16–22). “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Satan came also among them to present himself before God. And the Lord said to the Satan: From where do you come? And the Satan answered the Lord, and said: From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it” (Job 2:1–2). The Satan said before God: Master of the Universe, I have gone to and fro across the entire world and have not found anyone as faithful as your servant Abraham, to whom you said: “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:17). And when he wanted to bury Sarah, he could not find a place to bury her, and yet he did not criticize Your ways, or accuse You of having failed to keep Your promise. About this it says: “And the Lord said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God and turns away from evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you moved Me against him, to destroy him without cause” (Job 2:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Were it not explicitly written in the verse, it would be impossible to say this, as it would be insulting to God’s honor. The verse states: “You moved Me against him,” like a person whom others persuade and allows himself to be persuaded, as if God had not wanted to do anything, but allowed Himself to be persuaded to bring harm to Job. It was taught in a baraita with regard to the methods of the Satan: He descends to this world and misleads a person into sinning. He then ascends to Heaven, levels accusations against that very sinner, and inflames God’s anger against him. He then receives permission to act and takes away the sinner’s soul as punishment. The Gemara returns to discuss the text of the book of Job: “And the Satan answered the Lord, and said: Skin for skin, for all that a man has he will give for his life. But put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse You to Your face. And the Lord said to the Satan: Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life. So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores from the sole of his foot to his crown” (Job 2:4–7). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Satan’s suffering was more difficult than that of Job. This can be explained by means of a parable involving a servant whose master said to him: Break the barrel but save its wine. Here too, God told the Satan that he could do whatever he liked short of taking Job’s life, and that limitation caused Satan to suffer. Reish Lakish says: Satan, the evil inclination, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence. He is the Satan who seduces people and then accuses them, as it is written: “So the Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with vile sores” (Job 2:7). He is also the evil inclination, as it is written there: “The impulse of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously” (Genesis 6:5); and it is written here: “Only upon himself do not put forth your hand” (Job 1:12). The verbal analogy between the various uses of the word “only” teaches that the evil inclination is to be identified with the Satan. He is also the Angel of Death, as it is written: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6); apparently Job’s life depends upon him, the Satan, and accordingly the Satan must also be the Angel of Death. Rabbi Levi says: Both Satan, who brought accusations against Job, and Peninnah, who tormented Hannah, mother of Samuel the prophet, acted with intent that was for the sake of Heaven. As for Satan, when he saw that the Holy One, Blessed be He, inclined to favor Job and praised him, he said: Heaven forbid that He should forget the love of Abraham. With regard to Peninnah, as it is written: “And her rival wife also provoked her sore, to make her fret” (I Samuel 1:6), i.e., Peninnah upset Hannah in order to motivate her to pray. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov taught this in Paphunya, and Satan came and kissed his feet in gratitude for speaking positively about him. The Gemara considers the character of Job. The verse states: “In all this Job did not sin with his lips” (Job 2:10). Rava says: A close reading of the verse indicates that he did not sin with his lips, but he sinned in his heart. What did he say that suggests that he had wicked thoughts? “The earth is given into the hand of the wicked, he covers the faces of its judges; if not he, then who is it?” (Job 9:24). Rava says: Job sought to turn the bowl upside down, that is to say, he alluded here to a heretical thought, as he said that the earth is given into the hand of the wicked, indicating that he had God in mind. Abaye said to him: Job was referring here only to the Satan, he being the wicked one into whose hands the land was given. The Gemara comments: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: “The earth is given into the hand of the wicked.” Rabbi Eliezer says: Job sought to turn the bowl upside down; Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Job was referring here only to the Satan. The Gemara continues to discuss Job’s statements: “Although You know that I am not wicked, and there is none that can deliver out of Your hand” (Job 10:7). Rava says: Job sought to exempt the whole world from judgment, claiming that all of a person’s actions are directed by God, and therefore one cannot be held culpable for his misdeeds. Job said before God: Master of the Universe, You created the ox with split hooves, making it kosher, and You created the donkey with closed hooves, making it forbidden; You created the Garden of Eden, and You created Gehenna; and similarly, You created righteous people and You created wicked people; who can restrain You? Seeing that You created people as either righteous or wicked, You cannot later complain about their actions. And how did Job’s friends answer him? “You do away with fear, and impair devotion before God” (Job 15:4) with such statements. True, the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the evil inclination, but He also created the Torah as an antidote to counter its effects and prevent it from gaining control of a person. Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written, Job saying about himself: “The blessing of him that was lost came upon me, and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy” (Job 29:13). “The blessing of him that was lost came upon me” teaches that Job used to steal a field from orphans, cultivate it, improve it, and then return it to them; consequently, they would bless him for the field they had lost. “I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy” teaches that anywhere that there was a widow whom no one would marry, he would go and cast his name upon her, i.e., he would start a rumor that she was related to him, and then somebody would come forward and marry her. Job further said: “O that my vexation were thoroughly weighed, and my calamity laid in the balances” (Job 6:2). Rav says: Dust should be put in the mouth of Job, meaning, he should not have spoken in such a manner, as if he were weighing his deeds against those of God; may one act as if he is in a friendship with Heaven? And similarly, Job said: “There is no arbiter between us, who may lay his hand upon us both” (Job 9:33). Rav says: Dust should be put in the mouth of Job for saying this; is there a servant who rebukes his master? Job also said: “I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a virgin?” (Job 31:1). Rava says: Dust should be put in the mouth of Job for saying this; he did not look at other women, but Abraham did not even look at his own wife, as it is written: “Now I know that you are a beautiful woman” (Genesis 12:11). One may learn by inference that initially he did not know how beautiful she was because he had not gazed at her. Job further said: “As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he who goes down to the grave shall come up no more” (Job 7:9). Rava says: From here it may be inferred that Job denied the resurrection of the dead, as he said that one who goes down to the grave will not come up and live again, just as a cloud that dissipates will not return. He also stated: “He crushes me with a tempest, and multiplies my wounds without cause” (Job 9:17). Rabba says: Job blasphemed with mention of a tempest and he was answered with mention of a tempest. Rabba explains: He blasphemed with mention of a tempest [bise’ara], as it is written: “He crushes me with a tempest.” Job said before God: Master of the Universe, perhaps a tempest passed before You and You confused Iyov, Job, with oyev, enemy. He was answered with mention of a tempest, as it is written: “Then the Lord answered Job out of the tempest, and said: Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now your loins like a man, for I will demand of you and let me know your answer” (Job 38:1–3). What is the meaning of “out of the tempest”? God said to him: I have created many hairs [nimin] on a person, and for each hair I created its own follicle through which the hair is sustained, so that two hairs should not draw from one follicle. As were two hairs to draw from one follicle, they would impair a man’s vision. Now, if I do not confuse one follicle with another, would I confuse Iyov with oyev? The Hebrew word for tempest, se’ara, is phonetically identical to the Hebrew word for hair. God further said to Job: “Who has divided a channel [te’ala] for the torrent of rain, or a path for the lightning of thunder”? (Job 38:25). I have created many drops of water in the clouds, and for each drop I created its own channel, so that two drops should not emerge from the same channel. As were two drops to emerge from the same channel they would destroy the earth and it would not yield produce. Now, if I do not confuse one drop with another, would I confuse Iyov with oyev? Incidentally, the Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term te’ala means a channel? Rabba bar Sheila said: As it is written with regard to Elijah the prophet: “And he fashioned a channel [te’ala] about the altar, as great as would contain two se’a of seed” (I Kings 18:32). The second half of the aforementioned verse in Job states: “Or a path for the lightning of thunder,” which is interpreted as follows: God said: I have created many thunderclaps in the clouds, and for each and every thunderclap I created its own path, so that two thunderclaps should not issue forth from the same path. As were two thunderclaps to issue from the same path, they would destroy the world. Now, if I do not confuse one thunderclap with another, would I confuse Iyov with oyev? It is further stated there: “Do you know when the wild goats of the rock give birth? Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” (Job 39:1). This goat is cruel to her young and shows them no pity; when she squats to give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so that the kid should fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and if the eagle reached her one moment early or was one moment late, the kid would immediately die. Now, if I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse Iyov with oyev? Similarly: “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” (Job 39:1). The womb of this hind is narrow, which makes for a difficult delivery. When she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [derakon] that bites her at the opening of the womb, which then becomes loose, and she gives birth, and if the snake reached her one moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die. Now, if I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse Iyov with oyev? The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: “Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom” (Job 34:35). But on the other hand, it is written with regard to Job’s friends: “You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job” (Job 42:8). Rava said: From here it may be inferred that a person is not held responsible for what he says when he is in distress. Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship. The verse states: “And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him” (Job 2:11). What does “they had made an appointment together” mean? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This phrase teaches that they all entered through one gate at the same time. And a Sage taught in a baraita: There were three hundred parasangs between each and every one of them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other. The Gemara asks: How did they all know at the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? There are those who say that they each had a crown which displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. And there are those who say they each had trees and when the trees withered they knew that sorrow had visited one of them. Rava said that this closeness between Job and his friends explains the adage that people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death. If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead. The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [larov] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Larov means that propagation [reviyya] came to the world through these daughters. Reish Lakish says: Strife [meriva] came to the world. Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to you who say that due to the daughters propagation came to the world, for what reason were the number of Job’s daughters not doubled, when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Granted, the numbers of Job’s daughters were not doubled in name, meaning they did not become twice as many, but they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch” (Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty. Jemimah [Yemima]; in her beauty she was similar to the day [yom]. Keziah; her scent wafted like the cassia [ketzia] tree. Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [keren] of a keresh, an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. They laughed at this in the West, Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered a blemish when a person resembles the horn of a keresh. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: She was like garden saffron [kekurkema derishka], which is the best of its kind. Keren refers to a garden, and pukh means ornament, as it is stated: “Though you enlarge your eyes with paint [pukh], you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30). It is reported that a daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he was upset that he did not have a son. His father said to him: Propagation has come to the world through the birth of a daughter. Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon: Your father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taught in a baraita: The world cannot endure without males and females, as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. But fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females. Similarly, the world cannot endure without either a spice dealer whose wares are sweet-smelling, or a tanner [bursi], who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. Fortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller, and woe to him whose occupation is a tanner. The Gemara comments that this disagreement is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states: “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about what bakkol means. Rabbi Meir says: The blessing is that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: On the contrary, the blessing was that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [itztagninut] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of bakkol, that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung this stone from the sphere of the sun, which from that point on brought healing to the sick. Abaye said: This explains the adage that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. Alternatively, what is the blessing of bakkol? That Esau did not rebel in Abraham’s lifetime, that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. Alternatively, the blessing of bakkol is that Ishmael repented in Abraham’s lifetime. The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that Esau did not rebel in Abraham’s lifetime? As it is written: “And Jacob was cooking a stew and Esau came in from the field and he was faint” (Genesis 25:29), and a baraita taught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father, as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew. The Gemara explains: And what is different about lentils that they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth, i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, so too a mourner has no mouth, that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. Alternatively, just as this lentil is completely round, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to whether it is appropriate to console a mourner with eggs, which have no opening but are not completely round. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That wicked Esau committed five transgressions on that day that Abraham died: He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principle of God’s existence, he denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, as it is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written there with regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: “For he found her in a field” (Deuteronomy 22:27). He killed a person, as it is written here: “And he was faint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers” (Jeremiah 4:31). And he denied the principle of God’s existence, as it is written here: “What profit is this to me” (Genesis 25:32); and it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” And he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death” (Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. And he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright” (Genesis 25:34). And from where do we derive that Ishmael repented in Abraham’s lifetime? From the incident involving Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi, who were sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozing while they were talking. Ravina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you say that any death with regard to which the word gevia, expire, is mentioned is the death of the righteous? Rav Ḥama bar Buzi said to him: Yes. For example: “And Isaac expired [vayyigva], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: But with regard to the generation of the flood it states: “And all flesh expired [vayyigva]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi said to him: We say this only when both gevia and asifa, gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person. Ravina asked: But isn’t there Ishmael, about whom gevia and asifa are written, as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [vayyigva vayyamot]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? Meanwhile Rava, who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully awoke and said to them: Children [dardekei], this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him” (Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse listed them in the order of their wisdom; that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: But if that is so, consider that the verse states: “And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him” (Genesis 35:29). What is the reason that the verse there did not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, since Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him, it is clear that he made Isaac his leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented in Abraham’s lifetime. Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that the Sages taught: There were three people to whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave already in this world a taste of the World-to-Come. They are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham, as it is written with regard to him: “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1). Isaac, as it is written with regard to him: “And I have eaten from everything” (Genesis 27:33). Jacob, as it is written with regard to him: “Because I have everything” (Genesis 33:11). This teaches that already in their lifetimes they merited everything, i.e., perfection. There were three people over whom the evil inclination had no sway. They are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything.” The completeness of their blessings means that they did not have to contend with their evil inclinations. And some say that even David was not subject to his evil inclination, as it is written: “And my heart has died within me” (Psalms 109:22), meaning that the evil inclination in his heart was nullified as if his heart had died. And how does the other authority, who does not include David in his list, explain this verse? He is mentioning his travails. David means to say that his heart died within him owing to all the suffering that he endured, but he says nothing about his evil inclination. The Sages taught: There were six people over whom the Angel of Death had no sway in their demise, and they are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything”; since they were blessed with everything they were certainly spared the anguish of the Angel of Death. Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, as it is written with regard to them that they died “by the mouth of the Lord” (Numbers 33:38; Deuteronomy 34:5), which indicates that they died with a kiss, and not at the hand of the Angel of Death. The Gemara asks: But with regard to Miriam it is not written: “By the mouth of the Lord.” Rabbi Elazar says: Miriam also died with a kiss, as this is learned through a verbal analogy between the word “there” mentioned in regard to Miriam: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and the word “there” mentioned in regard to Moses: “And Moses died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5). And for what reason is “by the mouth of the Lord” not stated with regard to her? It is unseemly to mention death by a kiss with regard to a woman. The Sages taught: There were seven people over whom the worm and the maggot had no sway, and they are: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and Benjamin, son of Jacob. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as it is written with regard to them, respectively: “With everything,” “from everything,” “everything.” Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, as it is written with regard to them: “By the mouth of the Lord”; Benjamin, son of Jacob, as it is written: “And to Benjamin he said: The beloved of the Lord, he shall dwell in safety by Him” (Deuteronomy 33:12). Even in death, he rests securely, unbothered by worms. And some say that even David is included, as it is written: “My flesh also dwells secure” (Psalms 16:9). The Gemara asks: And how does the other authority, who does not include David, explain this? The Gemara answers: He is asking for mercy, that his flesh should dwell secure and not be subject to worms and maggots, but his request was denied. The Sages taught in a baraita: There were four people who died only because of the counsel of the primordial snake, in the wake of which all of humanity became mortal, and not on account of any personal sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Chileab, son of David. And all of these are known through tradition except for Yishai, father of David, with regard to whom it is written explicitly: “And Absalom placed Amasa over the army instead of Joab, and Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who engaged in intercourse with Abigail, daughter of Nahash, the sister of Zeruiah, mother of Joab” (II Samuel 17:25). But was Abigail the daughter of Nahash? Was she not the daughter of Yishai, as it is written: “And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail” (I Chronicles 2:16)? Rather, she was called “daughter of Nahash” to indicate that she was the daughter of one who died only because of the counsel of the snake.

§ The mishna teaches: And urine must be kept at a distance of three handbreadths from the wall of one’s neighbor. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: It is permitted for a person to urinate alongside the wall of another, as it is written: “And I will cut off from Ahab those who urinate against the wall, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel” (I Kings 21:21). As the verse employs the term “those who urinate against the wall” to mean males, it seems that urinating against a wall was a common practice. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that urine must be kept a distance of three handbreadths from the wall? The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot, as opposed to urine that is passed from the body. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: A person may not pour water at the side of the wall of another unless he distances the water three handbreadths from it. If pouring water is prohibited, then all the more so should urination be prohibited. The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to urine that is poured from a chamber pot. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: A person may not urinate alongside the wall of another unless he distances himself three handbreadths from it. In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a brick wall. But in the case of a stone wall, one must distance himself enough so that it does not cause damage. And how far must he distance himself? One handbreadth. And if there is hard rock present, it is permitted to urinate there. The Gemara comments: The refutation of the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana is a conclusive refutation, and his ruling is rejected. The Gemara asks: But Rabba bar bar Ḥana stated a verse in support of his opinion; how can the baraita rule counter to what is written in a verse? The Gemara answers: This is what it is saying there, i.e., this is the meaning of that verse: I will not even leave Ahab something whose manner is to urinate against a wall. And what is that? A dog. According to this interpretation, the verse is not referring to people at all.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the mishna, which states that one can prevent his neighbor from opening a store in the courtyard because the noise keeps him awake, and what is different in the latter clause, which states that one cannot protest when his neighbor performs labor that is noisy? Abaye said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of one who operates in another courtyard, i.e., one cannot prevent activity in a separate courtyard that is connected to the alleyway in which he lives. Rava said to him: If so, let it teach that in a different courtyard it is permitted. Why does the mishna not specify that it is referring to a different courtyard? Rather, Rava said: In the latter clause we arrive at the case of schoolchildren who come to learn Torah in his house, and this ruling applies from the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla and onward. What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people. Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons. When the Sages saw that not everyone was capable of teaching their children and Torah study was declining, they instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that enabled them to do this? They interpreted the verse: “For Torah emerges from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3). But still, whoever had a father, his father ascended with him to Jerusalem and had him taught, but whoever did not have a father, he did not ascend and learn. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in one city in each and every region [pelekh]. And they brought the students in at the age of sixteen and at the age of seventeen. But as the students were old and had not yet had any formal education, a student whose teacher grew angry at him would rebel against him and leave. It was impossible to hold the youths there against their will. This state of affairs continued until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in each and every province and in each and every town, and they would bring the children in to learn at the age of six and at the age of seven. With regard to the matter at hand, since this system was established for the masses, the neighbors cannot prevent a scholar from teaching Torah in the courtyard. Concerning that same issue, Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, a teacher of children: Do not accept a student before the age of six, as he is too young, and it is difficult for him to learn in a steady manner. From this point forward, accept him and stuff him with Torah like an ox. And Rav further said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: When you strike a child for educational purposes, hit him only with the strap of a sandal, which is small and does not cause pain. Rav further advised him: He who reads, let him read on his own; whoever does not read, let him be a companion to his friends, which will encourage him to learn to read. With regard to a courtyard, the Gemara concluded that it is permitted for one to establish an elementary school to teach Torah and the neighbors cannot protest. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: With regard to one member of a courtyard who wishes to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver [vegardi], or a teacher of children, the other members of the courtyard can prevent him from doing so. This indicates that neighbors can protest the teaching of children in their shared courtyard. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here, i.e., when can they protest his teaching children? We are dealing with a case of gentile children, as there is no mitzva to educate them. In this situation, the neighbors can protest about the noise. Come and hear another baraita: With regard to two people who are residing in one courtyard, and one of them sought to become a doctor, a bloodletter, a weaver, or a teacher of children, the other can prevent him from doing so. The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a case of gentile children. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita: One who has a house in a jointly owned courtyard may not rent it to a doctor, nor to a bloodletter, nor to a weaver, nor to a Jewish teacher [sofer], nor to a gentile teacher. This indicates that one’s neighbors can prevent him from teaching Jewish children. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the scribe [sofer] of the town, who does not teach children but writes documents and letters for residents of the town. This type of work is not a mitzva, and since many people seek his services, the residents of the courtyard can prevent him from performing this job near their houses. § With regard to the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, and concerning teaching children in general, Rava says: From the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla, that schoolteachers must be established in each town, and onward, one does not bring a child from one town to another. Rather, each child is educated where he resides. But one does bring them from one synagogue where they learn to another synagogue. And if a river separates the areas one does not bring the children across, lest they fall into the river. And if there is a bridge spanning the river one may bring them across the river. But if there is only a narrow bridge [gamla] one does not bring them. And Rava said: The maximum number of students for one teacher of children is twenty-five children. And if there are fifty children in a single place, one establishes two teachers, so that each one teaches twenty-five students. And if there are forty children, one establishes an assistant, and the teacher receives help from the residents of the town to pay the salary of the assistant. And Rava said: If there is a teacher of children who teaches a few subjects, and there is another who teaches more subjects than him, one does not remove the first teacher from his position to hire the second, as perhaps the other teacher will come to be negligent due to the lack of competition. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: On the contrary, all the more so is it the case that he will teach in a better manner if he knows that he is the sole instructor in the place, as jealousy among teachers increases wisdom. The one who was dismissed will try to refine his skills so that he will be rehired, and this will prevent negligence on the part of the other teacher. And Rava said: If there are two teachers of children, one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise in his statements, and one who is precise but does not teach a lot of material, one hires the one who teaches a lot of material but is not precise. Why is this? Errors will be corrected by themselves, and no lasting harm will be caused. By contrast, Rav Dimi of Neharde’a said: One hires the instructor who is precise and does not teach a lot of material, as once an error is taught, it is taught, and cannot be easily corrected. The Gemara cites a proof for the opinion of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a: This is as it is written: “For Joab and all Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom” (I Kings 11:16). When Joab came before King David after this episode, David said to him: What is the reason that you did that? Why did you kill only the males? Joab said to him: As it is written: You shall blot out the males [zakhar] of Amalek, i.e., the male descendants of Amalek, who descend from Edom. David said to him: But we read the verse as stating: “You shall blot out the remembrance [zekher] of Amalek” (Deuteronomy 25:19). Joab said to him: I was taught to read it as zakhar. Joab went and asked his childhood Bible teacher. Joab said to him: How did you read this word to us? The teacher said to him: I read it as zekher. The teacher had read it the proper way, but he failed to notice that his student had learned it incorrectly. Joab took a sword to kill him. The teacher said to him: Why do you want to kill me? Joab said to him: As it is written: “Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord with a slack hand” (Jeremiah 48:10), and you taught me incorrectly. The teacher said to him: Leave that man to remain as cursed. This is a sufficient punishment; there is no need to kill me. Joab said to him: It is also written: “And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood” (Jeremiah 48:10). There are those who say that Joab killed him, and there are those who say that he did not kill him. In any event, this episode demonstrates that an error learned in one’s childhood stays with him his whole life. And Rava says: With regard to a teacher of children, a professional tree planter, a butcher, a bloodletter, and a town scribe, all these are considered forewarned. In other words, they need not be exhorted to perform their jobs correctly, as if they err in the performance of their duties they can be dismissed immediately. The principle of the matter is: With regard to any case where loss is irreversible, the individual is considered forewarned.

§ The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship to sell them. The Exilarch said to Rava: Go and see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. Rava said to his student Rav Adda bar Abba: Go and smell his jar, i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar. Rav Adda bar Abba went and asked Rav Dimi a question: With regard to an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it intact along with its waste, what is the halakha? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer was not available to Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi said to Rav Adda bar Abba: Is the Master Rava, i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba struck him on his shoe in a disparaging way and said to him: There is a great difference between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher. Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore he did not reserve the market for him, and Rav Dimi lost his dried figs, as they rotted. Rav Dimi came before Rav Yosef to complain, and said to him: The Master should see what they did to me. Rav Yosef said to him: He Who did not delay retribution for the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay His response to your humiliation, but should punish whoever distressed you, as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” (Amos 2:1). The Gemara reports that Rav Adda bar Abba died. Rav Yosef said: I punished him, i.e., I am to blame for his death, as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. As Rav Adda bar Abba said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you would do better to eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished because of me, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the kalla lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. Every day, before he went in for the kalla lecture, he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter the study hall for the kalla lecture. On that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion of Rava’s lecture. They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these halakhot of animal tithe. Rav Adda bar Abba said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba had not yet arrived. The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise and teach us, as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, who has presumably died. Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had indeed died. The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to conclude that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way.

§ With regard to the last statement of the baraita, Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What does frequent mean in this context? If we say it means frequent among the winds, i.e., this wind blows all the time, that is difficult. But doesn’t Rav Ḥanan bar Abba say that Rav says: Four winds blow every day from different directions, and the northern wind blows with each of the other three; as, if this were not so, i.e., if it did not blow, the world would not exist for even one hour, as the northern wind is pleasant and tempers the bitter effects of the other winds. And the southern wind is harsher than all of them, and were it not for the angel named Ben Netz, who stops it from blowing even harder, it would destroy the entire world, as it is stated: “Does the hawk [netz] soar by your wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?” (Job 39:26). This indicates that the northern wind is the most constant, not the western wind. Rather, what is the meaning of frequent? It means frequent with the Divine Presence, i.e., the Divine Presence is found on the western side, and therefore it is inappropriate to set up a tannery there with its foul odors. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Come and let us be grateful to our ancestors who revealed to us the place of prayer, as it is written: “And the hosts of heaven bow down to You” (Nehemiah 9:6). Since the celestial bodies move from east to west, they bow in that direction, which indicates that the Divine Presence is in the west. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: But perhaps the celestial bodies are like a servant who receives a gift from his master and walks backward while bowing. If so, the Divine Presence is in the east and the celestial bodies are moving backward. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult, i.e., the verse does not provide a definitive proof. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Oshaya holds that the Divine Presence is found in every place, as Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You are the Lord, even You alone, You have made heaven…You preserve them all alive and the hosts of heaven bow down to You” (Nehemiah 9:6)? This indicates that Your messengers are not like the messengers of flesh and blood. The messengers of flesh and blood return to the place from where they were sent to report on their mission. But Your messengers return and report on their mission from the very same place to which they are sent, as it is stated “Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go out and say to you: Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The verse does not state: They will come and say, i.e., they do not return to their point of departure, but: “They may go out and say,” which teaches that the Divine Presence is found in every place. The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yishmael, too, holds that the Divine Presence is in every place, as one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where is it derived that the Divine Presence is in every place? As it is stated: “And behold the angel who spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him” (Zechariah 2:7). Although both angels were coming from the Divine Presence, the verse does not state: After him, but: “To meet him,” which teaches that the Divine Presence is in every place, and therefore the angels depart for their missions from every place. And Rav Sheshet, too, holds that the Divine Presence is in every place, as Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Set me facing any direction to pray except for the east. Rav Sheshet, who was blind, required the assistance of his aide to prepare for prayer. He explained to his servant: And the reason I do not wish to face east is not because it does not contain the Divine Presence, but because the heretics instruct people to pray in that direction. But Rabbi Abbahu says: The Divine Presence is in the west, as Rabbi Abbahu says: What is the meaning of oriyya, which is a name for the west? It means the air of God [avir Yah], i.e., this is the place of the Divine Presence. The Gemara cites a statement connected to the four winds. Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender growth, and as the showers upon the herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2)? “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof ] as the rain”; this is the western wind, which comes from the back of [me’orpo] the world, as the west is also referred to as the back.

The Gemara cites a statement connected to the four winds. Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender growth, and as the showers upon the herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2)? “My doctrine shall drop [ya’arof ] as the rain”; this is the western wind, which comes from the back of [me’orpo] the world, as the west is also referred to as the back. “My speech shall distill [tizzal] as the dew”; this is the northern wind, which brings dry air that reduces the rain and grain and thereby devalues [mazzelet] gold. When grain crops are reduced their price appreciates, and consequently the value of gold decreases. And in addition, it says: “You who lavish [hazzalim] gold out of the bag” (Isaiah 46:6). “As the small rain [kisirim] upon the tender growth”; this is the eastern wind that rages through [maseret] the entire world like a demon [sa’ir] when it blows strongly. “And as the showers upon the herb”; this is the southern wind, which raises showers and causes herbs to grow. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The world is similar to a partially enclosed veranda [le’akhsadra], enclosed on three sides, and the northern side of the world is not enclosed with a partition like the other directions. The sun begins its revolution in the east and passes to the south and the west, and once the sun reaches the northwestern corner it turns around and ascends throughout the night above the sky to the east side and does not pass the north side. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: The world is similar to a small tent [lekubba], and the north side is enclosed with a partition as well, but once the sun reaches the northwestern corner it emerges from this small tent, and circles and passes behind the dome, i.e., outside the northern partition, until it reaches the east. As it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to its place, where it rises again. It goes toward the south, and turns about to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns” (Ecclesiastes 1:5–6). The verse is understood as describing the sun’s movements, as follows: “It goes toward the south” during the day, “and turns about to the north,” on the outside of the firmament, at night. “Round and round goes the wind [ruaḥ] and the wind returns again to its circuits”; as the word ruaḥ can also mean direction or side, Rabbi Yehoshua explains that these are the face of the east and the face of the west. Sometimes, in the short winter days, the sun turns about them without being seen, and sometimes, in the long summer days, it traverses them visibly. The baraita continues: He would say. Before continuing its citation, the Gemara interjects: In this statement, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that the world is like a partially enclosed veranda. The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: There is proof from a verse that the north side is open: “Out of the chamber comes the storm”; this is the southern side that forms a room with the other two sides. “And cold out of the dispersed parts” (Job 37:9); this is the northern side, which is open, and from which a cold wind comes. “By the breath of God ice is given”; this is the western side. “And the breadth of the waters is straitened” (Job 37:10); this is the eastern side, from which the rains come. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the Master say that the southern wind raises showers and causes herbs to grow? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This is referring to rain that falls gently, which waters plants and brings growth; that is referring to a downpour of rain that causes damage. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Out of the north comes gold” (Job 37:22)? This is the northern wind, which devalues gold by causing a drought that raises the price of grain. And, in addition, it says: “You who lavish gold out of the bag” (Isaiah 46:6). § Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: From the day the Temple was destroyed the southern wind has not brought rain, as it is stated in the description of the destruction of the Temple: “He decrees on the right and there is hunger, and consumes on the left and they are not satisfied” (Isaiah 9:19). This means that God decreed that the southern wind, which is called right, shall bring famine with it. And it is written: “North and right, You have created them” (Psalms 89:13). This proves that the term right means south. And Rafram bar Pappa says that Rav Ḥisda says: From the day the Temple was destroyed, the rains no longer descend from the good storehouse, as it is stated: “The Lord will open to you His good storehouse, the skies, to give the rain of your land in its season” (Deuteronomy 28:12). In a time when the Jewish people perform God’s will, and the Jewish people are settled in their land, rain descends from the good storehouse. In a time when the Jewish people are not settled in their land, rain does not descend from the good storehouse. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who wishes to become wise should face south, and one who wishes to become wealthy should face north. And your mnemonic for this is that in the Temple the Table, which symbolized blessing and abundance, was in the north, and the Candelabrum, which symbolized the light of wisdom, was in the south of the Sanctuary. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One should always face south, as once he becomes wise he will subsequently also become wealthy, as it is stated with regard to the Torah: “Length of days is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor” (Proverbs 3:16). The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the Divine Presence is in the west. How, then, can one pray facing south? The Gemara explains that one should turn aside slightly, so that he faces southwest. Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rav Ashi: An individual such as you, who lives to the north of Eretz Yisrael, should face south when you pray. And from where do we derive that Babylonia is located to the north of Eretz Yisrael? As it is written in a prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians: “Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land” (Jeremiah 1:14).

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: In the case of a woman who was forced to accept betrothal, the betrothal is certainly not valid. This man acted improperly; consequently, the Sages acted improperly with him, and the Sages expropriated her betrothal from him. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well in a case where he betrothed his wife with money, as it is possible to say that the Sages expropriated from the possession of its owner the money used for the betrothal, resulting in a retroactive cancellation of the betrothal. But if he betrothed her by means of sexual intercourse, then what is there to say? Rav Ashi said to him: The Sages deemed his sexual intercourse as licentious sexual intercourse, which does not create a bond of betrothal. § The Gemara relates: Someone named Tavi suspended another person named Pafi on a kinara and compelled him to sell his field. Rabba bar bar Ḥana signed both on Pafi’s preemptive declaration nullifying the sale (see 40b) and on the bill of sale [ashkalta]. Rav Huna said: The one who signed on the preemptive declaration acted well by signing, and the one who signed on the bill of sale acted well by signing.

§ The Gemara quotes additional matters that Rabbi Yoḥanan learned from Rabbi Bena’a. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Bena’a: How should the garment of a Torah scholar worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that his flesh is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the cloak of a Torah scholar be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that a handbreadth of his garment worn under his clothes is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the table of a Torah scholar appear? He replied: Two-thirds of the table is covered with a cloth, and one-third is uncovered, and upon that third are dishes and vegetables. And its ring, used to hang the table, should be positioned on the outside, not on the side that faces the one who is eating. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that its ring should be positioned on the inside? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is a child who may play with the ring and overturn the table, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is no child present. And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is no child present, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is an attendant who may bump into the ring, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is no attendant. And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is an attendant, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the day, when the attendant can see the ring and avoid it, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the night. The Gemara continues: All of the above is referring to the table of a Torah scholar, but the table of an ignoramus is similar to a bonfire, where the fire is in the center and pots surround it. Similarly, the table of an ignoramus is arranged with the food in the center and is surrounded by plates. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the bed of Torah scholars be kept? He replied: It is acceptable as long as there is nothing except sandals beneath it during the summer, and shoes beneath it during the rainy season, i.e., winter. And the bed of an ignoramus is similar to a cluttered [balus] storehouse, as he keeps a wide array of items beneath it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the bed of Torah scholars be kept? He replied: It is acceptable as long as there is nothing except sandals beneath it during the summer, and shoes beneath it during the rainy season, i.e., winter. And the bed of an ignoramus is similar to a cluttered [balus] storehouse, as he keeps a wide array of items beneath it. § Having mentioned Rabbi Bena’a, the Gemara relates an incident in which he was involved. Rabbi Bena’a was marking burial caves for the purpose of helping to prevent the contracting of ritual impurity. When he arrived at the cave of Abraham, i.e., the Cave of Machpelah, he encountered Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who was standing before the entrance. Rabbi Bena’a said to him: What is Abraham doing at this moment? Eliezer said to him: He is lying in the arms of Sarah, and she is examining his head. Rabbi Bena’a said to him: Go tell him that Bena’a is standing at the entrance, so that he should assume an appropriate position to receive a visitor. Eliezer said to him: Let him, i.e., Rabbi Bena’a, enter, since it is known that there is no evil inclination in this higher world, so it is not inappropriate for Rabbi Bena’a to see Abraham and Sarah in this position. He entered, examined the cave in order to measure it, and exited. When he arrived at the cave of Adam the first man, who is buried in the same area, a Divine Voice emerged and said: You gazed upon the likeness of My image, i.e., Abraham, who is similar to the image of Adam the first man. Do not gaze upon My image itself, i.e., Adam the first man, about whom the verse states that he was formed in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27). Rabbi Bena’a said: But I need to mark the cave. The voice said to him: As the measurements of the dimensions of the outer cave where Abraham is buried, so are the measurements of the dimensions of the inner cave, where Adam is buried. The Gemara notes: And according to the one who says that the Cave of Machpelah consists of two chambers, this one above that one, not two adjacent chambers, the voice said: As the measurements of the dimensions of the upper cave where Abraham is buried, so are the measurements of the dimensions of the lower cave. Therefore, there is no need to measure it. Rabbi Bena’a says: I gazed at his, Adam’s, two heels, and they shone so brightly that they are similar to two suns. Along these lines, the Gemara states that all people compared to Sarah are like a monkey compared to a human, as Sarah was exceedingly beautiful; Sarah compared to Eve is like a monkey compared to a human; Eve compared to Adam is like a monkey compared to a human; and Adam compared to the Divine Presence is like a monkey compared to a human. It was also stated that the beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rav. The beauty of Rav is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu. The beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob our forefather. The beauty of Jacob our forefather is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man. On the topic of burial caves, the Gemara relates that there was a certain magus [amgusha] who was rummaging through the graves of the dead. When he arrived at the burial cave of Rav Tovi bar Mattana, Rav Tovi grabbed him by his beard and would not release him. Abaye came and said to Rav Tovi: I beg of you to release him. The magus came again in another year, and Rav Tovi grabbed him by his beard. Abaye came and requested that he release him, but Rav Tovi did not release him, until Abaye brought a scissors and cut his beard. § The Gemara relates additional incidents involving Rabbi Bena’a: There was a certain individual who said to his family before he died: A barrel of earth to one of my sons, a barrel of bones to one of my sons, and a barrel of wads of wool to one of my sons. They did not know what he was saying to them. They came before Rabbi Bena’a for guidance. Rabbi Bena’a said to them: Do you have land that your father left as an inheritance? They said to him: Yes. He asked: Do you have livestock that your father left as an inheritance? They said: Yes. He asked: Do you have quilts [bistarkei] that your father left as an inheritance? They said: Yes. He said to them: If so, this is what he said to you, i.e., he meant that he is bequeathing land to one son, livestock to the second, and quilts to the third.

§ The Gemara relates additional incidents involving Rabbi Bena’a: There was a certain individual who said to his family before he died: A barrel of earth to one of my sons, a barrel of bones to one of my sons, and a barrel of wads of wool to one of my sons. They did not know what he was saying to them. They came before Rabbi Bena’a for guidance. Rabbi Bena’a said to them: Do you have land that your father left as an inheritance? They said to him: Yes. He asked: Do you have livestock that your father left as an inheritance? They said: Yes. He asked: Do you have quilts [bistarkei] that your father left as an inheritance? They said: Yes. He said to them: If so, this is what he said to you, i.e., he meant that he is bequeathing land to one son, livestock to the second, and quilts to the third. There was a certain man who heard his wife saying to her daughter: Why do you not act clandestinely when you engage in forbidden sexual intercourse? That woman has, i.e., I have, ten sons, and I have only one from your father, and no one knows. So too, you must be careful so that no one will discover your illicit behavior. Having overheard that only one son was his, when that man was dying he said to his family: All of my property is left to one son. They did not know to which of them he intended to leave his property. They came before Rabbi Bena’a for guidance, and he said to the sons: Go strike your father’s grave, until he rises and reveals to you to which of you he left his property. They all went, but that one who was his son did not go. Rabbi Bena’a said to them: All of the property belongs to this son who did not go. The other brothers were angry. They went and slandered [akhlu kuretza] Rabbi Bena’a in the king’s house. They said: There is one man among the Jews who removes money from people without witnesses and without any evidence. The king’s guards brought Rabbi Bena’a and imprisoned him. The wife of Rabbi Bena’a went and said to the guards: I had one servant. They cut off his head, and skinned him and ate his flesh, and they fill him with water and give their friends to drink from him, and they have not paid me his value nor have they rented him. They did not know what she was saying to them. They said: Let us bring the wise man of the Jews, and let him say what she meant. They called Rabbi Bena’a, and he said to them: She spoke to you of a water skin [zarnuka]. In other words, she was referring to a goat she owned that was slaughtered, its meat eaten, and its skin made into a water skin that could be filled with drinking water. They said: Since he is so wise, let him sit at the gate where the judges congregate and render judgment. Rabbi Bena’a saw that it was written upon the gate [be’abbula]: Any judge who is summoned to judgment is not considered a judge, as judges must be above reproach. He said to them: If that is so, then if a person comes from elsewhere and summons a judge to judgment, has he disqualified the judge even if he were later to be exonerated? Rather, it should say: Any judge who is summoned to judgment and money is lawfully taken from him, i.e., he was ordered to return someone’s property, is not considered a judge. When they heard this, they wrote this addendum to the original inscription: But the elders of the Jews say that any judge who is summoned to judgment and money is lawfully taken from him is not considered a judge. Rabbi Bena’a also saw that it was written there: At the head of all death am I, blood, i.e., people die from an excess of blood; at the head of all life am I, wine, i.e., wine is what gives life. He said to them: If that is so, in the case of someone who falls from a roof and dies, or someone who falls from a palm tree and dies, was it blood that killed him? And furthermore, concerning someone who is on the way to death, can they give him a drink of wine and he will live? Rather, this is what should be written: At the head of all illness am I, blood; at the head of all healing am I, wine. When they heard this, they wrote this addendum to the original inscription: But the elders of the Jews say: At the head of all illness am I, blood; at the head of all healing am I, wine. In a place where there is no wine, herbs are required there as medicines. Having related that incident, the Gemara notes that at the entrance of Kapotekiyya it was written: Anpak, anbag, antal, which are all names for the same measurement. And what is antal? It is the quarter-log of the Torah.

§ Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a person may prepare all that he needs for a meal, but he must leave out a small item to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small item? Rav Pappa said: Something akin to small, fried fish. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalms 137:5–6). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitzḥak says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: “To appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries. The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her” (Isaiah 66:10). It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it. And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised. But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not. ...

§ Rabba said: I have seen the one called Hurmin, son of Lilith, when he was running on the pinnacles of the wall of the city of Meḥoza, and a horseman was riding an animal below him but was unable to catch up to him. Once, they saddled for him two mules and they stood on the two bridges of the river Rognag, and he jumped from this one to that one, and from that one to this one. And he was holding two cups of wine in his hands and was pouring from this one to that one, and from that one to this one, and not one drop fell to the ground. And that day was stormy, similar to the description in a verse dealing with seafarers: “They mounted up to the heavens, they went down to the deeps; their soul melted away because of trouble” (Psalms 107:26). He continued in this manner until word of his behavior was heard in the house of the king, and they killed him. Rabba said: I have seen a day-old antelope [urzila] that was as large as Mount Tabor. And how large is Mount Tabor? It is four parasangs. And the length of its neck was three parasangs, and the place where his head rests was a parasang and a half. It cast feces [kufta] and thereby dammed up the Jordan. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I have seen a certain frog [akrokta] that was as large as the fort [akra] of Hagronya. And how large is the fort of Hagronya? It is as large as sixty houses. A snake came and swallowed the frog. A raven came and swallowed the snake, and flew up and sat in a tree. Come and see how great is the strength of the tree, which could bear the weight of that raven. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: If I had not been there and seen this, I would not believe it. § And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in a ship and we saw a certain fish in whose nostril [be’usyeih] a mud eater [akhla tina], i.e., a type of insect, had sat and killed him. And the waters thrust the fish and threw it upon the shore. And sixty districts were destroyed by the fish, and sixty districts ate from it, and another sixty districts salted its meat to preserve it. And they filled from one of its eyeballs three hundred flasks of oil. And when we returned there after the twelve months of the year had passed, we saw that they were cutting beams from its bones, and they had set out to build those districts that had been destroyed. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling on a ship and we saw a certain fish upon which sand had settled, and grass grew on it. We assumed that it was dry land and went up and baked and cooked on the back of the fish, but when its back grew hot it turned over. And were it not for the fact that the ship was close by, we would have drowned. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in a ship and the ship traveled between one fin [shitza] and the other fin of a fish for three days and three nights. The fish was swimming in the opposite direction of the ship, so that it was swimming upward against the wind and the waves, and we were sailing downward. And if you would say that the ship did not travel very fast, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In the short amount of time required to heat a kettle of water, that ship can travel sixty parasangs. And another demonstration of its speed is that a horseman shot an arrow, and yet the ship was traveling so swiftly that it outraced it. And Rav Ashi said: That fish was a sea gildana, which has two sets of fins. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in a ship and we saw a certain bird that was standing with water up to its ankles [kartzuleih] and its head was in the sky. And we said to ourselves that there is no deep water here, and we wanted to go down to cool ourselves off. And a Divine Voice emerged and said to us: Do not go down here, as the ax of a carpenter fell into it seven years ago and it has still not reached the bottom. And this is not because the water is so large and deep. Rather, it is because the water is turbulent. Rav Ashi said: And that bird is called ziz sadai, wild beast, as it is written: “I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the ziz sadai is Mine” (Psalms 50:11). And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we saw these geese whose wings were sloping because they were so fat, and streams of oil flowed beneath them. I said to them: Shall we have a portion of you in the World-to-Come? One raised a wing, and one raised a leg, signaling an affirmative response. When I came before Rabbi Elazar, he said to me: The Jewish people will eventually be held accountable for the suffering of the geese. Since the Jews do not repent, the geese are forced to continue to grow fat as they wait to be given to the Jewish people as a reward....

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the items shown by an Arab man to Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the following stories: Like the dust of the sky-blue; the scorpion stung the basket. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once we were traveling in the desert and we were accompanied by a certain Arab who would take dust and smell it and say: This is the road to such and such a place, and that is the road to such and such a place. We said to him: How far are we from water? And he said to us: Bring me dust. We brought it to him, and he said: Eight parasangs. Later, we said this a second time, and gave him dust, and he said to us that we are at a distance of three parasangs. I switched the type of dust to test him, but I could not confuse him, as he was an expert in this matter. That Arab said to me: Come, I will show you the dead of the wilderness, i.e., the Jewish people who left Egypt and died in the wilderness. I went and saw them; and they had the appearance of one who is intoxicated, and they were lying on their backs. And the knee of one of them was elevated, and he was so enormous that the Arab entered under his knee while riding a camel and with his spear upright, and he did not touch him. I cut one corner of the sky-blue garment that contains ritual fringes of one of them, and we were unable to walk. The Arab said to me: Perhaps you took something from them? Return it, as we know by tradition that one who takes something from them cannot walk. I then returned the corner of the garment, and then we were able to walk. When I came before the Sages, they said to me in rebuke: Every Abba is a donkey, and every bar bar Ḥana is an idiot. For the purpose of clarifying what halakha did you do that? If you wanted to know whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai or in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, as to whether there are four or three threads and joints in ritual fringes, in that case there was no need to take anything with you, as you should have simply counted the threads and counted the joints. Rabba bar bar Ḥana continues his account. That Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you Mount Sinai. I went and saw that scorpions were encircling it, and they were standing as high as white donkeys. I heard a Divine Voice saying: Woe is Me that I took an oath; and now that I took the oath, who will nullify it for me? When I came before the Sages, they said to me in rebuke: Every Abba is a donkey, and every bar bar Ḥana is an idiot. You should have said: Your oath is nullified. The Gemara explains: And Rabba bar bar Ḥana did not nullify the oath because he reasoned: Perhaps God is referring to the oath that He will not flood the earth again. But the Sages would argue that if that were so, why say: Woe is Me? Rather, this must be referring to God’s oath of exile upon the Jewish people. Rabba bar bar Ḥana continues his account. The Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you those who were swallowed by the earth due to the sin of Korah. I saw two rifts in the ground that were issuing smoke. The Arab took a shearing of wool, and dipped it in water, and inserted it on the head of a spear, and placed it in there. And when he removed the wool, it was scorched. He said to me: Listen to what you hear; and I heard that they were saying: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars. The Arab further said to me: Every thirty days Gehenna returns them to here, like meat in a pot that is moved around by the boiling water as it cooks. And every time they say this: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars. This Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you the place where the earth and the heavens touch each other. I took my basket and placed it in a window of the heavens. After I finished praying, I searched for it but did not find it. I said to him: Are there thieves here? He said to me: This is the heavenly sphere that is turning around; wait here until tomorrow and you will find it....

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan relates: Once we were traveling on a ship and we saw a certain fish that took its head out of the sea, and its eyes had the appearance of two moons, and water scattered from its two gills like the two rivers of Sura. Rav Safra relates: Once we were traveling on a ship and we saw a certain fish that took its head out of the sea, and it had horns, and the following was inscribed on them: I am a lowly creature of the sea and I am three hundred parasangs long, and I am going into the mouth of the leviathan. Rav Ashi said: That is the goat of the sea, which searches through the sea and has horns. Rabbi Yoḥanan relates: Once we were traveling on a ship and we saw a certain crate [kartalita] in which precious stones and pearls were set, and a species of fish called sharks encircled it. He descended, i.e., a diver [bar amoraei] went into the water to bring up this chest, and the fish became angry and sought to sever his thigh, but the diver threw upon it a flask of vinegar and they descended and swam away. A Divine Voice emerged and said to us: What right do you have to touch the crate of the wife of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, as she is destined to insert sky-blue wool in it to be used in the ritual fringes of the righteous in the World-to-Come? Rav Yehuda from India relates: Once we were traveling in a ship and we saw a certain precious stone that was encircled by a snake. A diver descended to bring it up, and the snake came and sought to swallow the ship. A raven came and cut off its head, and the water turned into blood due to the enormousness of the snake. Another snake came, took the precious stone, and hung it on the dead snake, and it recovered. It returned and again sought to swallow the ship, and yet again a bird came and cut off its head, took that precious stone, and threw it onto the ship. We had with us these salted birds; we placed the stone on them, and they took the stone and flew away with it. § Apropos the stories of large sea creatures, the Gemara discusses the large sea creatures mentioned in the Bible. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who were traveling on a ship, and Rabbi Eliezer was sleeping and Rabbi Yehoshua was awake. Rabbi Yehoshua trembled, and Rabbi Eliezer awoke. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: What is this, Yehoshua; for what reason did you tremble? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I saw a great light in the sea. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you saw the eyes of the leviathan, as it is written: “And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning” (Job 41:10). Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: Once we were traveling in the desert, and we had a thigh of meat with us. We cut open the thigh and tore off the sciatic nerve and the forbidden fat and put it on the grass. By the time that we brought wood, the thigh had repaired itself, and we roasted it. When we returned to that place after twelve months of the year had passed, we saw that those coals were still glowing. When I came before Ameimar, he said to me: That grass was a drug of life [samterei], while those coals were of broom. The verse states: “And God created the great sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21). Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted this as a reference to the sea oryx. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent, as it is stated: “In that day the Lord with His sore and great and strong sword will punish leviathan the slant serpent, and leviathan the tortuous serpent” (Isaiah 27:1)....

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rav Yehuda citing Rav: Everything; time; Jordan. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Everything that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, He created male and female. Even leviathan the slant serpent and leviathan the tortuous serpent He created male and female. And if they would have coupled and produced offspring, they would have destroyed the entire world. What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do? He castrated the male and killed the female, and salted the female to preserve it for the banquet for the righteous in the future. As it is stated: “And He will slay the serpent that is in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1). And He created even the beasts on the thousand hills (see Psalms 50:10) male and female. And they were so enormous that if they would have coupled and produced offspring, they would have destroyed the entire world. What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do? He castrated the male and cooled the sexual desire of the female and preserved it for the righteous in the future. As it is stated about the beasts: “Lo now, his strength is in his loins” (Job 40:16); this is referring to the male. The continuation of the verse: “And his force is in the stays of his body”; this is the female, alluding to the idea that they did not use their genitals for the purpose of procreation. The Gemara asks: There too, with regard to the leviathan, let Him castrate the male and cool the female; why was it necessary to kill the female? The Gemara answers: Fish are unrestrained, and therefore even if the female was cooled, the female would still procreate. The Gemara suggests: And let Him do the opposite, and kill and preserve the male leviathan. The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that the salted female is better; if you wish, say instead that since it is written: “There is leviathan, whom You have formed to sport with” (Psalms 104:26), the male must be left alive for sport, because it is not proper conduct to sport with a female. The Gemara asks: Here too, with regard to the beasts, let Him preserve the female in salt, instead of cooling it. The Gemara answers: Salted fish is good, but salted meat is not good. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to create the world, He said to the minister of the sea: Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of the world, so that there will be room for land. The minister of the sea said before Him: Master of the Universe, it is enough that I will stay within my own waters. God immediately struck him and killed him; as it is stated: “He stirs up the sea with His power, and by His understanding He smites through Rahab” (Job 26:12). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Conclude from here that the name of the minister of the sea is Rahab, and were it not for waters of the sea that cover him, no creature could withstand his smell, as his corpse emits a terrible stench. As it is stated: “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). Do not read this phrase as “cover the sea”; rather read it as: Cover the minister of the sea, i.e., the term sea is referring to the minister of the sea, not to the sea itself. And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Jordan issues forth from the cave of Pamyas. That is also taught in a baraita: The Jordan issues forth from the cave of Pamyas, and travels in the Sea of Sivkhi, i.e., the Hula Lake, and in the Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee, and rolls down to the Great Sea, and rolls down until it reaches the mouth of the leviathan. As it is stated: “He is confident, though the Jordan rush forth to his mouth” (Job 40:23). Rava bar Ulla strongly objects to this explanation of the verse, stating: But this verse is written about the beasts on the thousand hills. Rather, Rava bar Ulla said that this is the meaning of the verse: When are the beasts on the thousand hills confident? When the Jordan rushes forth into the mouth of the leviathan. ...

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Rav Dimi: Seas; Gabriel; hungry. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods” (Psalms 24:2)? These are the seven seas and four rivers that surround Eretz Yisrael. And these are the seven seas: The Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Sodom, i.e., the Dead Sea, the Sea of Ḥeilat, the Sea of Ḥeilata, the Sea of Sivkhi, the Sea of Aspamya, and the Great Sea, i.e., the Mediterranean. And these are the four rivers: The Jordan, the Jarmuth, and the Keiromyon, and the Piga, which are the rivers of Damascus. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yonatan says: In the future, Gabriel will perform a hunt of the leviathan, as it is stated: “Can you draw out leviathan with a fish hook? Or press down his tongue with a cord?” (Job 40:25). And were the Holy One, Blessed be He, not assisting Gabriel, he would not be able to hunt it, as it is stated: “Only He Who made him can use His sword to approach him” (Job 40:19). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When the leviathan is hungry, he produces breath from his mouth and thereby boils all of the waters in the depths of the sea. As it is stated: “He makes the deep boil like a pot” (Job 41:23). And if the leviathan did not place its head in the Garden of Eden, no creature could withstand his foul smell, as it is stated: “He makes the sea like a seething mixture [merkaḥa]” (Job 41:23), and the term merkaḥa is also used to describe something with a smell (see Exodus 30:25). And when he is thirsty, he makes many furrows in the sea, as it is stated: “He makes a path to shine after him” (Job 41:24). Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov says: After the leviathan drinks from the sea, the depth of the sea does not return to its normal condition until seventy years have passed, as it is stated: “One would think the deep to be hoary” (Job 41:24), and hoary indicates a person who is no less than seventy years old. Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make a feast for the righteous from the flesh of the leviathan, as it is stated: “The ḥabbarim will make a feast [yikhru] of him” (Job 40:30). And kera means nothing other than a feast, as it is stated: “And he prepared [va’yikhreh] for them a great feast [kera]; and they ate and drank” (II Kings 6:23). And ḥabbarim means nothing other than Torah scholars, as it is stated: “You that dwell in the gardens, the companions [ḥaverim] hearken for your voice: Cause me to hear it” (Song of Songs 8:13). This verse is interpreted as referring to Torah scholars, who listen to God’s voice. And with regard to the remainder of the leviathan, they will divide it and use it for commerce in the markets of Jerusalem, as it is stated: “They will part him among the kena’anim” (Job 40:30). And kena’anim means nothing other than merchants, as it is stated: “As for the merchant [kena’an], the balances of deceit are in his hand. He loves to oppress” (Hosea 12:8). And if you wish, say that the proof is from here: “Whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers [kinaneha] are the honorable of the earth” (Isaiah 23:8). And Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will prepare a sukka for the righteous from the skin of the leviathan, as it is stated: “Can you fill his skin with barbed irons [besukkot]” (Job 40:31). If one is deserving of being called righteous, an entire sukka is prepared for him from the skin of the leviathan; if one is not deserving of this honor, a covering is prepared for his head, as it is stated: “Or his head with fish-spears” (Job 40:31). If one is deserving at least of this reward, a covering is prepared for him, and if one is not deserving, a necklace is prepared for him, as it is stated: “And necklaces about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9). If one is somewhat deserving, a necklace is prepared for him, and if one is not deserving even of this, only an amulet is prepared for him from the skin of the leviathan, as it is stated: “Or will you bind him for your maidens” (Job 40:29), i.e., a small amulet is prepared for him, like the amulets tied on children’s necks. And with regard to the remaining part of the skin of the leviathan, the Holy One, Blessed be He, spreads it on the walls of Jerusalem, and its glory radiates from one end of the world until the other end. As it is stated: “And nations shall walk in your light, and kings at the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah 60:3). ...

§ With regard to the future glory of Jerusalem, the Gemara interprets the verse: “And I will make your pinnacles of kadkhod” (Isaiah 54:12). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Two angels in heaven, Gabriel and Michael, disagree with regard to the material that will be used to form the walls of Jerusalem. And some say that this dispute is between two amora’im in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. And who are they? They are Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya. One said they will be made of onyx, and one said of jasper. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Let it be like this [kedein] and like that [ukhedein], i.e., let them be formed from both together. This compromise is indicated by the word kadkhod, a combination of this [kedein] and that [ukhedein]. The Gemara analyzes the rest of that verse: “And your gates of precious stones” (Isaiah 54:12). This should be understood in light of that incident where Rabbi Yoḥanan sat and taught: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring precious stones and pearls that are thirty by thirty cubits, and He will hollow out in them a hole of ten by twenty cubits and set them in the gates of Jerusalem. A certain unnamed student sneered at him, saying: Now we do not find precious stones even of the size of an egg of a dove, and yet all of this we will find? After a period of time that student’s ship went to sea, where he saw ministering angels sitting and sawing precious stones and pearls that were thirty by thirty cubits, and hollowed out in them were holes of ten by twenty cubits. He said to the angels: For whom are these? They said to him that in the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will place them in the gates of Jerusalem. Later, the student came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: Continue to interpret, my teacher, it is fitting for you to interpret, as I saw just as you said. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Worthless man, if you had not seen, you would not have believed; clearly, you are mocking the statement of the Sages. Rabbi Yoḥanan set his eyes upon him, and the student was instantly killed and turned into a pile of bones. The Gemara raises an objection against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, based on a baraita. The verse states: “And I will make you go upright [komemiyyut]” (Leviticus 26:13). Rabbi Meir says: In the future, the Jewish people will have the stature of two hundred cubits, equivalent to two times the height [komot] of Adam the first man, whose height was one hundred cubits. Rabbi Meir interprets the word komemiyyut as two komot. Rabbi Yehuda says: They will have the stature of one hundred cubits, corresponding to the Sanctuary and its walls, as it is stated: “We whose sons are as plants grown up in their youth; whose daughters are as corner-pillars carved after the fashion of the Sanctuary” (Psalms 144:12). But if they are each one hundred cubits tall, how could the Jews enter the gates of Jerusalem, whose entrance gate will be ten by twenty cubits, as claimed by Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan stated that idea, he was not referring to the gates themselves but to the windows that allow wind to enter. § And Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will fashion seven canopies for each and every righteous individual, as it is stated: “And the Lord will create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion, and over those who are invited to it, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be a canopy” (Isaiah 4:5). This teaches that for each and every righteous individual, the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashions for him a canopy seven times over, in accordance with his honor, i.e., greater individuals receive grander and larger canopies. The Gemara asks a question with regard to the above verse: Why should there be smoke in a canopy? Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is because anyone whose eyes are narrow, i.e., is stingy, toward Torah scholars in this world, his eyes fill with smoke in the World-to-Come. And why should there be fire in a canopy? Rabbi Ḥanina said: This teaches that each and every one is burned from embarrassment at the size of the canopy of the other, and says: Woe for this embarrassment, woe for this disgrace, that I did not merit a canopy as large as his. In a similar manner, you can say that God said to Moses about Joshua: “And you shall put of your honor upon him” (Numbers 27:20), which indicates that you should put some of your honor, but not all of your honor. The elders of that generation said: The face of Moses was as bright as the face of the sun; the face of Joshua was like the face of the moon. Woe for this embarrassment, woe for this disgrace, that we did not merit another leader of the stature of Moses. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, fashioned ten canopies for Adam the first man, in the Garden of Eden; as it is stated to Hiram, king of Tyre: “You were in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, the topaz, and the emerald, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the smaragd, and gold; the workmanship of your drums and of your holes was in you; they were prepared on the day that you were created” (Ezekiel 28:13). This verse mentions ten items, from carnelian to gold. Mar Zutra said: There were eleven canopies, as it states: “Every precious stone,” which is also part of the tally. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And the worst of all of them was gold, as it is counted last, which indicates that the other items are more valuable. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “The workmanship of your drums and of your holes [nekavekha]” (Ezekiel 28:13)? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hiram, king of Tyre: Were you in the Garden of Eden when I created all of this for you? I looked at you, saw that you would one day claim divinity for yourself, and created many orifices [nekavim] in man, i.e., the excretory system, so that you would know that you are human and not a god. And there are those who say that this is what God said to Hiram: I looked at you and I decreed death on Adam the first man, to demonstrate that he was human and not a god. § The Gemara returns to the aforementioned verse: “And the Lord will create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion, and over those who are invited to it, a cloud and smoke by day” (Isaiah 4:5). What is the meaning of the phrase: “And over those who are invited to it”? Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Jerusalem of the World-to-Come is not like Jerusalem of this world. With regard to Jerusalem of this world, anyone who wants to ascend there can ascend. With regard to Jerusalem of the World-to-Come, only those who are invited to it can ascend. And Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the righteous will be called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He; as it is stated: “Every one that is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7). This indicates that one who was created by God and causes Him glory is called by His name. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Three were called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and they are: The righteous, and the Messiah, and Jerusalem. With regard to the righteous, this is as we have just said. With regard to the Messiah, this is as it is written: “And this is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord is our righteousness” (Jeremiah 23:6). With regard to Jerusalem, this is as it is written: “It shall be eighteen thousand reeds round about. And the name of the city from that day shall be, the Lord is there [shamma]” (Ezekiel 48:35). Do not read the word as “there” [shamma]; rather, read it as: The Lord is its name [shemah]. Rabbi Elazar says: In the future, the righteous will have the name: Holy, recited before them, as one recites before the Holy One, Blessed be He; as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass, that he who is left in Zion, and he who remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy” (Isaiah 4:3). And Rabba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will raise Jerusalem three parasangs upward; as it is stated: “And it shall be lifted up and inhabited in its place” (Zechariah 14:10). What is the meaning of the phrase “in its place”? It means equivalent to its place, i.e., Jerusalem will be raised to a height whose measure in parasangs corresponds to the measure of its area in square parasangs. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the place of Jerusalem was an area of three square parasangs? Rabba said that a certain elder said to me: I saw the initial Jerusalem, when it was still extant, and its area was three square parasangs. The Gemara continues to discuss the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: And lest you say that there is discomfort in ascending to a place so high, the verse states in a prophecy depicting the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem: “Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their cotes” (Isaiah 60:8). This indicates that they can easily ascend to Jerusalem, as though they were clouds or doves. Rav Pappa said: Incidentally, one can learn from that statement that this cloud mentioned in the verse is three parasangs high, as it reaches Jerusalem, which will be raised three parasangs. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wished to give a set measure for Jerusalem, as it is stated in a prophecy of Zechariah: “And I lifted up my eyes and saw, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. Then I said: Where are you going? And he said to me: To measure Jerusalem, to see what is its breadth, and what is its length” (Zechariah 2:5–6). The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have created many cities in Your world for the nations of the world, and You did not give the measure of their length or the measure of their width, i.e., they are not limited by any set measure, but expand as they develop. With regard to Jerusalem, which has Your name in it, and Your Temple in it, and righteous people in it, will You give it a measure? Immediately: “And, behold, the angel that spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him, and said to him: Run, speak to this young man, saying: Jerusalem shall be inhabited without walls for the multitude of men and cattle within it” (Zechariah 2:7–8). Reish Lakish says: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will add to Jerusalem one thousand times the numerical value of tefaf of gardens; one thousand times the numerical value of kefel of towers; one thousand times the value of litzoy of fortifications; and one thousand and two times the value of shilo of small houses [totpera’ot]. And each and every one of these additions will be like the great city of Tzippori in its prosperity. The Gemara clarifies the size of the city of Tzippori. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I saw Tzippori in its prosperity, and there were one hundred and eighty thousand markets of sellers of meat sauces in it. On this basis, one can estimate the future size of Jerusalem. In a similar manner, the Gemara interprets the verse: “And the side-chambers were one over another, three and thirty times” (Ezekiel 41:6). What is the meaning of: “Three and thirty times”? Rabbi Levi says that Rav Pappi says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnei: If in the future Jerusalem will triple in size, so that it occupies three times its former area, then each and every dwelling will contain thirty stories upward. If the area of Jerusalem will be multiplied by thirty, each and every dwelling will contain three stories above every house....

The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Therefore they that speak in parables [hamoshlim] say: Come to Heshbon! Let the city [ir] of Sihon be built and established! For a fire is gone out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon; it has devoured Ar of Moab, the lords of the high places of Arnon” (Numbers 21:27–28)? The Gemara interprets these verses homiletically. “Hamoshlim”; these are the people who rule over [hamoshlim] their evil inclination. They will say: “Come to Heshbon,” meaning: Come and let us calculate the account of [ḥeshbono] the world, i.e., the financial loss incurred by the fulfillment of a mitzva in contrast to its reward, and the reward for committing a transgression, i.e., the pleasure and gain received, in contrast to the loss it entails. “Let it be built and established” means that if you make this calculation, you will be built in this world and you will be established in the World-to-Come. The phrase “city [ir] of Sihon” means that if a person fashions himself like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk [siḥa], i.e., if one is easily tempted to listen to his inclination, what is written after it? “For a fire is gone out of Heshbon…it has devoured,” i.e., a fire will go out from those who calculate the effect of their deeds in the world, and will consume those who do not calculate and examine their ways but instead do as they please. A similar interpretation applies to the continuation of the verse: “A flame from the city of Sihon”; this means that a flame will come from the city of righteous people, who are called trees [siḥin]. “It has devoured Ar of Moab”; this is referring to one who follows after his inclination like this young donkey [ayir] that follows after pleasant talk. “The lords of the high places of Arnon”; this is referring to the arrogant. As the Master says: Every person who has arrogance in him will fall into Gehenna. The Gemara interprets a subsequent verse: “We have shot at them [vanniram], Heshbon is perished, even until Dibon, and we have laid waste even until Nophah, which reaches until Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). “Vanniram”; this indicates that the wicked person says: There is no higher [ein ram] power governing the world. “Heshbon is perished” means: The account [ḥeshbon] of the world has perished, i.e., they claim there is no accountability for one’s actions. “Even until Dibon [divon]”; the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Wait until judgment comes [yavo din]. “And we have laid waste even until Nophah,” meaning until the fire comes that does not require fanning [nippuaḥ], i.e., the fire of Gehenna, which will consume them. “Until Medeba [Medeva]”; this means until their souls are pained [tadiv]. And some say an alternative explanation: It means until God does what He wishes [mai deva’ei] with them and punishes them as they deserve. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who separates himself from matters of Torah, a fire consumes him, as it is stated: “And I will set My face against them; out of the fire they come forth, and the fire shall devour them” (Ezekiel 15:7). The Torah is likened to fire in the verse: “Is not My word like fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29). The verse in Ezekiel teaches: “Out of the fire they come forth,” referring to those who separate themselves from the fire of Torah; “and the fire shall devour them,” i.e., they are consumed by the fire of Gehenna. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who separates himself from the matters of Torah falls into Gehenna. As it is stated: “The man who strays out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the spirits” (Proverbs 21:16). “The way of understanding” is the way of the Torah. And one who departs from the Torah arrives in the place of the spirits, which is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “But he does not know that the spirits are there; that those whom she has called are in the depths of the netherworld” (Proverbs 9:18).

§ Rabbi Levi says: The punishment for using false measures is more severe than the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations. As in that case, forbidden relations, it is stated with regard to them a shortened term for the word “these”: “El,” in the verse: “For all these [el ] abominations” (Leviticus 18:27). And in this case, false measures, it is stated an expanded term for the word “these”: “Elleh,” in the verse: “For all that do these [elleh] things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 25:16). And from where may it be inferred that this expression “el” indicates that the prohibition is severe, based on which it is understood that the form this word takes indicates a level of severity? As it is written: “And the mighty [eilei] of the land he took away” (Ezekiel 17:13). The Gemara asks: But with regard to forbidden relations isn’t it also written: “For whosoever shall do any of these [elleh] abominations” (Leviticus 18:29)? If so, why is the punishment for using false measures considered harsher? The Gemara answers: That expression of “elleh” (Leviticus 18:29) in the context of forbidden relations does not serve to emphasize its severity. Rather, it serves to exclude one who uses deception in measures from the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. The Gemara asks: But if the punishment is in fact less severe, what is the advantage, i.e., the greater severity, in the case of false measures? The Gemara answers that there, in the case of one who engages in forbidden relations, he has the possibility of repentance. But here, in the case of one who uses false measures, there is no possibility of repentance because he has no way of knowing whom he cheated, and is therefore unable to return the stolen money. And Rabbi Levi says: Robbing an ordinary person is more severe than robbing the Most High, i.e., taking consecrated property. As with regard to this regular robber, the verse states “sin” before “me’ila”: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass [me’ila] against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). And with regard to that one who misuses consecrated items, the verse states me’ila before sin: “If any one engages in misuse [timol ma’al] and sins unwittingly” (Leviticus 5:15). And Rabbi Levi says: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, blessed the Jewish people with twenty-two, and cursed them with only eight. Rabbi Levi explains: He blessed them with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, from the first letter, alef, that begins the verse: “If [im] you walk in My statutes” (Leviticus 26:3), until “upright [komemiyyut]” (Leviticus 26:13), which ends with the letter tav, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. And He cursed them with eight letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: “And if [ve’im] you shall reject My statutes” (Leviticus 26:15), until: “And My statutes were abhorred by their soul [nafsham]” (Leviticus 26:43), which ends with the letter mem. There are eight letters in the Hebrew alphabet from the letter vav to the letter mem, inclusive. And yet Moses, our teacher, who is flesh and blood, blessed them with eight letters, and cursed them with twenty-two. He blessed them with eight letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: “And it shall come to pass [vehaya], if you shall hearken diligently” (Deuteronomy 28:1), until: “To serve them [le’ovdam]” (Deuteronomy 28:14), which ends with the letter mem. And he cursed them with twenty-two letters, from the letter vav that begins the verse: “But it shall come to pass [vehaya], if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 28:15), until: “And no man shall buy [koneh]” (Deuteronomy 28:68). This verse ends with a letter heh, which comes just before vav in the alphabet. Starting with a vav and ending with a heh encompasses the twenty-two letters of the alphabet.

§ The mishna teaches that in a place where they were accustomed to measure with one large measuring vessel, one may not measure with several small measuring vessels. In a place where the custom is to level the top of the measuring vessel to remove substances heaped above its edges, one may not heap it; and where they are accustomed to heap it, one may not level it. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing halakhot: One may not balance with precision; and one may not heap it; with market inspectors [ba’agardamin]; and with a litra; three; and ten; fulcrum; weights; a thick leveler; you may not do; one may not do. The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one may not level a measuring vessel in a place where they are accustomed to heap it and that one may not heap it in a place where they are accustomed to level it? The verse states: “A perfect weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which indicates that one must use whatever is considered a perfect measuring vessel in that locale, as this ensures that there is no deception or trickery. And from where is it derived that if the seller said in a place where they heap: I am hereby leveling and am willing in exchange to reduce the price for you, or said, in a place where they level: I am hereby heaping and am willing to increase the price for you, that the court does not listen to him? The verse states: “A perfect and just weight you shall have” (Deuteronomy 25:15). The addition of the term “just,” beyond the requirement that the weight be “perfect,” teaches that one must keep his weights in a just manner, i.e., that employed by the people of that locale. The Sages taught: From where is it derived that one may not balance a scale so that it will balance with precision [me’ayyenin] in a place where they are accustomed to let the scales tilt a handbreadth for the benefit of the buyer, and that one may not let the scales tilt a handbreadth in a place where they are accustomed to balance with precision? The verse states: “A perfect weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which teaches that the weight must be considered perfect in that locale. And from where is it derived that if a seller said, in a place where it is the custom to let the scales tilt a handbreadth: I am hereby balancing with precision and am willing to reduce the price for the buyer; or, in a place where it is the custom to balance with precision: I am hereby letting the scales tilt a handbreadth and am willing to increase the price for the buyer, that the court does not listen to him? The verse states: “A perfect and just weight” (Deuteronomy 25:15), which teaches that the just way of acting is to weigh in accordance with the practice in that locale. Rav Yehuda of Sura says a homiletic interpretation of the phrase: “You shall not have in your house diverse measures” (Deuteronomy 25:14): “You shall not have in your house” means that you will become a pauper, who has nothing in his house. What is the reason for this? It is due to the fact that you used diverse measures, buying with a large vessel and selling with a small one. The phrase: “You shall not have in your purse diverse weights” (Deuteronomy 25:13), is interpreted in a similar fashion: “You shall not have in your purse,” i.e., you will become a pauper, who has nothing in his purse. What is the reason for this? It is due to the fact that you used diverse weights. But if you possess only “a perfect and just weight,” then “you shall have” wealth. Likewise, if you possess only “a perfect and just measure,” then “you shall have” wealth. § The Sages taught that the phrase: “You shall not have,” teaches that the court appoints market inspectors to supervise the accuracy of measures. The Gemara infers: But the court does not appoint market inspectors for supervising market prices. The Gemara relates: The house of the Nasi appointed market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices. Shmuel said to his student, the Sage Karna: Go out and teach them that one appoints market inspectors for supervising measures but one does not appoint market inspectors for prices.

§ The Sages taught that the phrase: “You shall not have,” teaches that the court appoints market inspectors to supervise the accuracy of measures. The Gemara infers: But the court does not appoint market inspectors for supervising market prices. The Gemara relates: The house of the Nasi appointed market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices. Shmuel said to his student, the Sage Karna: Go out and teach them that one appoints market inspectors for supervising measures but one does not appoint market inspectors for prices.

Karna went out and taught them that one appoints market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices. Shmuel, hearing what he had done, said to him: What is your name? He replied: Karna. Shmuel said: Let a horn [karna] emerge in his eye. A horn, i.e., a growth of flesh, emerged in his eye. The Gemara asks: And Karna, in accordance with whose opinion did he hold, which led him to disregard his teacher’s statement? He held in accordance with that which Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One appoints market inspectors for supervising both measures and prices, due to swindlers, to prevent people from using smaller measures or from selling at a steep price while falsely claiming that they are selling superior-quality merchandise.

§ Shmuel says: If the residents of a certain place want to change the standard of their measures and augment them by a certain fraction, they may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, and they may not increase the value of a coin by more than one-sixth of its previous value. And one who profits from his sales may not profit by more than one-sixth. The Gemara analyzes these statements. When Shmuel said: They may not increase the measures by more than one-sixth, what is the reason for this? If we say it is because doing so causes market prices to rise, the same concern should apply to raising the prices by one-sixth, and therefore this should also not be allowed. Rather, you will say that the prohibition is due to concern for exploitation; and they may increase the measures only by up to one-sixth, so that there will not be nullification of the transaction, as the transaction is nullified only when the disparity is more than one-sixth of the value of the item. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed. A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the details of the item are easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction. Rather, the prohibition is so that there will not be a loss suffered by the merchant, who might not realize that a new standard was issued, and sell in accordance with the old standard. Since a merchant usually enjoys a profit of one-sixth of the value of an item, if the standard is not increased by more than this amount he will not suffer a loss, as at worst he will forfeit his profit margin. This Gemara notes: This explanation is also difficult, since even if the aim is to ensure that there will not be a loss for the merchant, does he not need to earn a profit? There is a well-known adage in this regard: If you buy and sell without making any profit, will you be called a merchant? A merchant must profit from his sales; therefore, if this decree was instituted for the protection of merchants, the Sages should have ensured that they earn a profit. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: The prohibition is not based on logical reasoning. Instead, Shmuel found a verse and interpreted it homiletically: “And the shekel shall be twenty gera; twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, ten, and five shekels, shall be your maneh” (Ezekiel 45:12). According to this verse, the combination of all of these numbers, sixty shekels, is equivalent to a maneh.

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions: Hoarders of produce; one may not hoard; and one may not export; and one may not earn a profit; twice from the sale of eggs; they sound the alarm; and one may not leave. The Sages taught: Hoarders of produce, who drive up prices by causing a shortage of available goods, and usurers, and those sellers who falsely reduce their measures, and those who raise market prices by selling for more than the accepted price, about them the verse states: “You that would swallow the needy and destroy the poor of the land, saying: When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell produce? And the Shabbat, that we may set forth grain? Making the measure small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit” (Amos 8:4–5). And it is written: “The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their works” (Amos 8:7). The Gemara asks: Hoarders of produce, such as whom? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Such as Shabbtai, the hoarder of produce, who would buy and hoard large amounts of produce and later sell it at a high price. The Gemara relates: Shmuel’s father would sell produce during the period of the early market price, when produce is cheap, for the early market price. His son Shmuel acted differently, and would keep the produce and sell it during the period of the late market price, when produce is expensive, for the early market price. They sent a message from there, Eretz Yisrael: The practice of the father is better than that of the son. What is the reason for this? A market price that has been eased and starts out low will remain eased, with little increase over the course of the year. Therefore, one who makes produce available at the beginning of the season, like Shmuel’s father, aids people during the entire year. By contrast, a market price that starts out high, because people are not making their produce available at the market, is not easily lowered. Rav says: A person may turn his own kav into a storeroom, i.e., he may hoard the produce of his own field and sell it only at a later stage, without violating the prohibition of hoarding produce. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not hoard produce of items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, but in the case of spices, such as cumin and pepper, it is permitted. In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to one who buys that produce from the market to resell later; but with regard to one who brings in produce from his own field, it is permitted for any type of produce. The baraita continues: And it is permitted for a person to hoard produce in Eretz Yisrael for these three years: The year preceding the Sabbatical Year, the Sabbatical Year, and the year that follows the Sabbatical Year, because the land lies fallow during the seventh year, the Sabbatical Year, and the produce of the sixth year must last through these three years, until near the end of the eighth year. And in years of drought one may not hoard even a kav of carobs, because he thereby brings a curse on market prices, as everyone is fearful of selling and even a small fluctuation in supply can cause a significant rise in prices. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who was living in Eretz Yisrael, said to his servant Fuga: Go and hoard produce for me for the coming three years: The year preceding the Sabbatical Year, the Sabbatical Year, and the year that follows the Sabbatical Year.

§ The Sages taught: One may not export produce from Eretz Yisrael if it consists of items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, because this causes them to become more expensive in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits export in the case of wine, because this lessens licentiousness in Eretz Yisrael. And just as one may not export these types of produce from Eretz Yisrael to outside of Eretz Yisrael, so too one may not export them from Eretz Yisrael to Syria, as Syria is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael in this context. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits the export of produce from the northernmost province [mehiparkheya] of Eretz Yisrael to the southernmost province of Syria. The Sages taught: One may not earn a profit in Eretz Yisrael by buying and reselling items that contain an element of basic sustenance, such as wines, oils, and flours, because this causes their price to rise. Rather, those who grow the produce should sell them in the markets, without recourse to a middleman. The Sages said of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that he would earn a profit through the sale of wine and oil. With regard to wine, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who says that it is permitted to export wine from Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that this causes it to become more expensive, as drinking wine leads to licentiousness. With regard to oil, in Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s locale oil was common; consequently, there was no concern that its price would rise if it were not sold directly to the consumer. The Sages taught: One may not earn a profit twice from the sale of eggs. Mari bar Mari said: Rav and Shmuel disagree about the meaning of that statement. One said it means that the seller may not charge double the price he paid for the eggs. And one said that one merchant may not sell to another merchant; rather, the merchant who buys from the owner of the eggs must sell directly to the consumer. § Apropos price fluctuations, the Gemara cites a baraita. The Sages taught: A community sounds the alarm and gathers in public prayer for merchandise [perakmatya] whose price has dropped. And even on Shabbat it is permitted to cry and plead, even though one may not pray for his personal needs on Shabbat, as this hardship affects the entire public.

§ Apropos price fluctuations, the Gemara cites a baraita. The Sages taught: A community sounds the alarm and gathers in public prayer for merchandise [perakmatya] whose price has dropped. And even on Shabbat it is permitted to cry and plead, even though one may not pray for his personal needs on Shabbat, as this hardship affects the entire public. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita is referring specifically to merchandise that serves as the basis of the local economy, such as linen garments in Babylonia, and wine and oil in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef said: And that halakha, that public prayer is recited even on Shabbat, applies only when the merchandise was reduced in price and stood at such prices that goods that had been worth ten are currently selling for six. The Sages taught: One may not leave Eretz Yisrael to live outside of Eretz Yisrael unless the price of two se’a of grain stood at a sela, which is double its usual price. Rabbi Shimon said: When does this exception, permitting one to leave Eretz Yisrael under certain circumstances, apply? It applies when one is unable to find produce to buy, as he has no money. But when one has money and is able to find produce to buy, even if the price of a se’a of grain stood at a sela, he may not leave. And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai would likewise say: Elimelech and his sons Mahlon and Chilion were prominent members of their generation and were leaders of their generation. And for what reason were they punished? They were punished because they left Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated concerning Naomi and Ruth: “And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: Is this Naomi?” (Ruth 1:19). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Is this Naomi”? How does this indicate that her husband and sons were punished for leaving Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yitzḥak says that the women said: Have you seen what befell Naomi, who left Eretz Yisrael for outside of Eretz Yisrael? Not only did she not escape tribulations there, but she lost her status entirely. And Rabbi Yitzḥak also says with regard to this passage: That very day when Ruth the Moabite came to Eretz Yisrael, the wife of Boaz died, i.e., from the moment of their arrival the possibility was created for Ruth’s eventual marriage to Boaz. This explains the adage that people say: Before the deceased dies, the person who will next be in charge of his house arises, as in this case Boaz’s new wife, Ruth, arrived as his previous wife died. Apropos the story of Ruth the Gemara adds: Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: The judge Ibzan of Bethlehem (see Judges 12:8–10) is Boaz. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara explains that this comment is in accordance with the other statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: Boaz prepared one hundred and twenty feasts for his children at their weddings. As it is stated, concerning Ibzan: “And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9). The verse indicates that he had sixty children. And at each and every wedding he prepared for his children, he made two feasts, one in the house of the father of the groom and one in the house of the father-in-law of the groom. And he did not invite Manoah, the future father of Samson, whose wife was barren (see Judges 13:2) to any of them, as he said: It is not worth inviting him; he is a sterile mule, how will he pay me back? Manoah will never invite me in return, as he has no children. A Sage taught: And all of the children of Ibzan died during his lifetime. And this explains the adage that people say: Why do you need the sixty, the sixty children that you beget during your lifetime? Go to the trouble and beget one who will be more diligent than sixty. This adage refers to Boaz, who had sixty children who died, and yet his last child, born from Ruth, is his glory, as King David was born from this line. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing statements that Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said that Rav said: Melech; Abraham; ten years; when he died; and He alone was exalted. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: With regard to Elimelech, and Boaz’s father, Salmon, and So-and-so, the unnamed relative who was a closer relative to Elimelech than Boaz (Ruth 4:1), and Naomi’s father, all of these are descendants of Nahshon, son of Amminadab, the head of the tribe of Judah (see Ruth 4:20–21 and Numbers 2:3). The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? He is teaching that even in the case of one who has the merit of his ancestors to protect him, this merit does not stand for him when he leaves Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael, as Elimelech died on account of this sin. And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: The mother of Abraham was called Amatlai bat Karnevo. The mother of Haman was called Amatlai bat Orevati. And your mnemonic, to ensure that the two are not confused for one another, is that a raven [orev] is impure, and in this manner one remembers that Orevati is the grandmother of the impure Haman, while a sheep [kar] is pure, which indicates that Karnevo is the grandmother of the pure Abraham. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava continues: The mother of David was named Natzvat bat Ada’el. The mother of Samson was named Tzelelponit, and his sister was called Nashyan. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference as to what their names were? The Gemara answers: It is important with regard to an answer for heretics who inquire into the names of these women, which are not stated in the Bible. One can reply that there is a tradition handed down concerning their names. And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Our forefather Abraham was imprisoned for ten years, because he rejected the idol worship that was accepted in his land. He was imprisoned for three years in the city of Khuta, and seven years in Karddu. And Rav Dimi of Neharde’a teaches the opposite, that he was imprisoned seven years in Khuta and three in Karddu. Rav Ḥisda said: The small passage of Khuta, this is Ur of the Chaldeans (see Genesis 11:31). And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: On that day when our forefather Abraham left the world, the leaders of the nations of the world stood in a line, in the manner of mourners, and said: Woe to the world that has lost its leader, and woe to the ship that has lost its captain. With regard to leaders, the Gemara adds that it is stated in praise of God: “And You are exalted as head above all” (I Chronicles 29:11). Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Even one with the most insignificant position of authority, e.g., an appointee over irrigation, is appointed by Heaven. The Gemara returns to its discussion of the punishment of Elimelech and his sons, which Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says they received because they left Eretz Yisrael. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Heaven forfend that they sinned in this manner, as if Elimelech and his sons had found even bran they would not have left Eretz Yisrael. But rather, for what reason were they punished? They were punished because they should have requested mercy of God for their generation, and they did not request this, as it is stated: “When you cry, let those you have gathered deliver you” (Isaiah 57:13). Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught that it is prohibited to leave Eretz Yisrael only if money is cheap, i.e., not excessively difficult to obtain, and produce is expensive, similar to the case in the baraita where two se’a of wheat are sold for a sela. But when money is expensive, i.e., it is difficult to earn money for sustenance, even if the price of four se’a of grain stood at a sela, one may leave Eretz Yisrael in order to survive. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following list of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s recollections: Sela; laborer; carob; boy; they would say. The first statement is that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when four se’a of produce were sold for one sela, and yet there were many swollen from hunger in Tiberias, as they did not have even one issar coin with which to purchase food. And Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: I remember when laborers would not agree to work on the east side of the city, because they would die from the smell of the bread that would waft over them from the city’s west side. The Gemara continues to relate other, more salutary, memories: And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when a child would break a carob, and a line of honey would extend over his two arms. And Rabbi Elazar said: I remember when a raven would take a piece of meat, and a line of fat would extend from the top of the wall upon which it was standing to the ground. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when a boy and girl, of sixteen and seventeen years of age, would walk together in the market, and they would not sin. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when they would say in the study hall that one who agrees with the gentiles falls into their hands, and that one who relies on them sees that which is his become theirs. The Gemara returns to its discussion of the story of Ruth. It is written: “Mahlon and Chilion” (Ruth 1:2), and it is written elsewhere: “Joash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab” (I Chronicles 4:22). Apparently, both names refer to the same individuals who married Moabite wives. Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to their true names. One says: Their given names were Mahlon and Chilion, and why were they called by the names Saraph and Joash? One was called Joash [yoash] because they despaired [nitya’ashu] of the redemption of Eretz Yisrael, as they established themselves in Moab and lived there for many years. The other was called Saraph, because they were liable to receive the punishment of burning [sereifa] for their sins against God, because they left their community. And one of them says: Their given names were Joash and Saraph, and why were they called by the names Mahlon and Chilion? One was called Mahlon [maḥlon] because they made their bodies profane [ḥullin], and the other was called Chilion [khilyon] because they were liable to receive the punishment of destruction [kelaya] for their sins against God. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that their given names were Mahlon and Chilion. As it is taught in a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubi Lehem. And the matters are ancient” (I Chronicles 4:22)? “And Jokim,” this refers to Joshua, who established [shehekim] and kept the oath with people of Gibeon (see Joshua, chapter 9). “And the men of Cozeba,” these are the men of Gibeon, who lied [shekizevu] to Joshua by saying that they came from a distant land. “And Joash, and Saraph,” these are Mahlon and Chilion. And why were they called by the names Joash and Saraph? One was called Joash because they despaired [shenitya’ashu] of the redemption; the other was called Saraph because they were liable to receive the punishment of burning [sereifa] for their sins against God. “Who had dominion in Moab,” this means that they married Moabite women. “And Jashubi Lehem,” this is referring to Ruth the Moabite, who returned [sheshava] and attached herself to Bethlehem of Judea. “And the matters are ancient,” this means that these matters were said by the Ancient of Days, i.e., they occurred through God’s will, as it is written: “I have found David My servant” (Psalms 89:21); and the same term “found” also appears with regard to the daughters of Lot, as it is written: “Your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15). This teaches that David’s ancestry can be traced this far back, as he was destined to be born from Moab, who was the son of Lot’s daughter and Lot himself. The Gemara cites a baraita that analyzes the next verse: “These were the potters, and those who dwelt among plantations and hedges; there they dwelt occupied in the king’s work” (I Chronicles 4:23). “These were the potters [yotzerim],” these are the sons of Jonadab, son of Rechab, who kept [natzeru] their father’s oath. “Those who dwelt among plantations,” this is referring to Solomon, who in his kingship was similar to a plant. “And hedges [ugdera],” this is the Sanhedrin, which fenced [gaderu] in the breaches of the Jewish people by means of ordinances. “There they dwelt occupied in the king’s work,” this is referring to Ruth the Moabite, who saw the kingship of Solomon, the grandson of her grandson. As it is stated about Solomon: “And he caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother” (I Kings 2:19), and Rabbi Elazar says: This means for the mother of the dynasty of kingship, i.e., Ruth. § Since the Gemara has discussed times of famine in Eretz Yisrael, it concludes the chapter with a blessing of times of prosperity: The Sages taught: When the verse states: “And you shall eat of the produce of the old store” (Leviticus 25:22), referring to the produce grown in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, this means without salmanton. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Without salmanton? Rav Naḥman said: Without worms [retzinta] that consume the produce, and Rav Sheshet said: Without blight, which destroys the taste of the produce.

§ In connection with the story of Jonathan, son of Manasseh, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always cleave to good people, meaning one should marry a woman from a good family, as this is beneficial for the offspring of that marriage. As in the case of Moses, who married a daughter of Yitro, who was a priest of idolatry, Jonathan, who was also a priest of idolatry, descended from him, while in the case of Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, who was of distinguished lineage in the tribe of Judah, Pinehas descended from him. The Gemara asks: And did Pinehas not also come from Yitro? But it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took one of the daughters of Putiel as a wife; and she bore him Pinehas” (Exodus 6:25). What, is it not stating that Pinehas came from the family of Yitro, who was also called Putiel because he fattened [pittem] calves for idol worship? The Gemara answers: No, it is stating that he came from Joseph, who battled [shepitpet] with his desire by resisting the advances of Potiphar’s wife. The Gemara asks: But didn’t the tribes denigrate him after he killed Zimri (see Numbers, chapter 25), and say of him: Have you seen this son of Puti, the son of he whose mother’s father fattened calves for idol worship? Should such a man kill a prince of a tribe of Israel? Rather, this is how the matter should be resolved: If his mother’s father came from the family of Joseph, his mother’s mother came from the family of Yitro, and if his mother’s father came from the family of Yitro, his mother’s mother came from the family of Joseph, so while his mother was descended from Joseph on one side and from Yitro on the other, Pinehas was a more distant relative to Yitro than Jonathan was. Based on this conclusion, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took one of the daughters of Putiel” (Exodus 6:25). Conclude from the wording of the verse that Pinehas was descended from two men who were referred to as Puti: Yitro and Joseph. Rava says: One who marries a woman needs to first examine her brothers so that he will know in advance what character his children will have, as it is stated: “And Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon” (Exodus 6:23). By inference from that which is stated: “The daughter of Amminadav,” do I not know that she is the sister of Nahshon, as Nahshon was the son of Amminadav? What is the meaning when the verse states: “The sister of Nahshon”? From here one learns that one who marries a woman needs to examine her brothers. The reason is as the Sages taught: Most sons resemble the mother’s brothers. In connection with the Gemara’s mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah’s house, the verse states: “And they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?” (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “Do not draw close to here [halom]” (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “What [ma] is that in your hand” (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “But as for you, stand here [po] with me” (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship? Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity. The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me. The Gemara continues its discussion of that episode. Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: “And Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries” (I Chronicles 26:24). The Gemara asks: And was his name really Shebuel; but wasn’t his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God [shav la’el ] with all his heart.

§ The Gemara presents a related statement. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Concerning anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath [evra] toward him, as it is written here: “If a man die, and he has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance [veha’avartem] to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8), and it is written there: “That day is a day of wrath [evra]” (Zephaniah 1:15). The words “veha’avartem” and “evra” share common root letters, whereby Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai interprets that God’s wrath may be the result of the inheritance passing to a daughter rather than a son. The Gemara presents a related statement. Concerning the verse: “God shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God” (Psalms 55:20), Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him. The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, for Rabbi Yoḥanan, whose ten sons died in his lifetime, said to those he would console: This is the bone of my tenth son, to encourage them not to succumb to their sorrow. Since Rabbi Yoḥanan knew that he would not leave any sons to inherit his property, it is reasonable to assume that he interpreted the verse as meaning that God is full of wrath toward one who does not leave behind a student. The Gemara comments that it may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student. The Gemara notes: And from this, that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son. The Gemara asks: But this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not go to a house of mourning [bei tamya] to console the bereaved so as not to interrupt his studies, except to the house of one who died without any sons, as it is written: “Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goes away” (Jeremiah 22:10), and Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse is referring to one who departs from this world without leaving behind a male child. From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would console specifically one who died without leaving a son, it is apparent that he does not hold that God is full of wrath toward such an individual. Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the Sage who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student. The Gemara notes: And from this that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is referring to one who does not leave behind a son. The Gemara asks: This poses a difficulty from one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son, to another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as he would say: This is the bone of my tenth son. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: This statement, with regard to the bone of his son, is his, while that statement, with regard to the verse, is his teacher’s.

§ The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous. The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5). That they are interpreters of verses can be seen from the fact that they were saying: If our father had had a son, we would not have spoken; but because he had no son, we are filling the role of the heir. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They would say, if he had had a daughter, we would not have spoken? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Delete from the baraita here the word: Daughter. As they were themselves daughters, this cannot have been their claim. Abaye said that the baraita need not be emended, and should be understood as follows: Even if there was a daughter of a son of Zelophehad, we would not have spoken, for she would have been the heir. That they are righteous can be seen from the fact that they did not rush to marry, but rather waited to marry those fit for them. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If a woman marries when she is less than twenty years old, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of sixty; if she marries when she is twenty years old or older, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of forty; if she marries when she is forty years old or older, she is no longer able to give birth at all. If so, how could Zelophehad’s daughters have waited until the age of forty to marry? Rather, since they are righteous women, a miracle was performed for them, like the one done for Jochebed. As it is written: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that this is Jochebed? Jochebed was then 130 years old and the verse called her a daughter, indicating one who is very young. Jochebed’s age is established based on a tradition concerning the number of Jacob’s descendants who came to Egypt, as follows: While the verse states that Leah had thirty-three descendants (Genesis 46:15), only thirty-two were enumerated. This was explained as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: This “daughter of Levi” is Jochebed, whose conception occurred on the journey as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, and she was born within the walls, i.e., having entered Egypt, as it is written: “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt” (Numbers 26:59). One can infer from the verse: Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. Since the Jewish people were in Egypt for 210 years and Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, Jochebed must have been 130 years old when Moses was born. The Gemara therefore asks: And why does the verse call her “a daughter”? Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: This teaches that her signs of youth miraculously came into being again. The flesh became smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and the youthful beauty returned to its place. The verse concerning Amram’s marriage to Jochebed states: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Since Jochebed had already been married to Amram for some years, as Miriam and Aaron were already born, the verse should have stated: And he took back as a wife. Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: The wording of the verse teaches that Amram performed for her a formal act of marriage as though he were marrying her for the first time. He seated her in a bridal palanquin [be’appiryon], and Aaron and Miriam were singing before her, and the ministering angels were saying: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9).

§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man whose children did not act properly. He arose and wrote a document transferring all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel, one of the Sages, as a gift. What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do? He sold a third of the property for his needs, and consecrated a third of the property, and returned the remaining third to the man’s children. Shammai came to Yonatan ben Uzziel with his staff and traveling bag to protest his giving part of the property to the man’s children against the deceased’s wishes. Yonatan ben Uzziel said to him: Shammai, if you can repossess the property that I sold from the purchasers and the property that I consecrated from the Temple treasury, you can repossess what I returned to the man’s children as well; but if not, as the property is mine and I have the right to do with it whatever I want, you cannot repossess what I returned to the man’s children either. Shammai then said: Ben Uzziel reprimanded me; ben Uzziel reprimanded me, and I have no response. The Gemara asks: What did Shammai hold initially, causing him to protest Yonatan ben Uzziel’s behavior? The Gemara answers: He protested due to the incident that happened in the city of Beit Ḥoron. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 48a): An incident occurred involving someone in the city of Beit Ḥoron whose father had vowed not to derive benefit from him, and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted his father to be able to participate in the wedding meal. And he therefore said to another: The courtyard where the wedding will take place and the wedding meal are hereby given to you as a gift, but they are given to you only so that my father will come and eat with us at the meal. The son wanted to circumvent the prohibition imposed by the vow and enable his father to participate in the meal, so he transferred ownership to someone else for that purpose. The recipient said to him: If they are mine, they are all hereby consecrated to Heaven, i.e., the Temple, and are forbidden to everyone. The son said to him in anger: I did not give you my property so that you should consecrate them to Heaven. The recipient said to him: You gave me your property only so that you and your father would eat and drink and thereby appease each other, and the sin of transgressing the vow would be hung on his, i.e., my, head, as I enabled the transgression. The mishna continues: In reference to this incident, the Sages said: Any gift that is not so absolute that if the recipient were to consecrate it, the gift would be consecrated, is not a gift. In other words, in order for it to be a gift the recipient must have the ability to consecrate it. Similarly, Shammai had initially reasoned that the gift to Yonatan ben Uzziel was not a valid gift, as its sole purpose was so that the property should not fall into the possession of the man’s children. Once he discovered that Yonatan ben Uzziel consecrated part of the gift, he realized that it was, in fact, a valid gift, with which the recipient could do whatever he pleased.

§ Apropos Yonatan ben Uzziel, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the least of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna; Talmud; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; and the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences; and verbal analogies; and the calculation of the calendric seasons; and numerical values of Hebrew letters [gimatriyot]; and parables of launderers, which are folktales that can be used to explain the Torah, and parables of foxes. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees, and the conversation of ministering angels, and more generally, a great matter and a small matter. The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), the conduct of the transcendent universe, and a small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the discussions of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines, so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. The Gemara adds: And if the least of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.

MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech. Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment. Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech? The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint, i.e., words with a bare trace, of malicious speech. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The majority of people succumb to sin with regard to robbery, and a minority of people succumb to sin with regard to sexual matters, and everyone succumbs to sin with regard to malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that all people sin with regard to malicious speech? The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint of malicious speech.

And Rabbi Yishmael thereupon said: One who wants to become wise should engage in the study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And, he added, one who wants to engage in the study of monetary law should attend to, i.e., become a disciple of, Shimon ben Nannas.