תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – פְּרָט לְחוֹלֶה. מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ חוֹלֶה, אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִנְּשִׂיאוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חָמָא: פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְנַגַּע ה׳ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד יוֹם מֹתוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית וְיוֹתָם בֶּן הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל הַבַּיִת״. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא עֶבֶד הֲוָה. כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲווֹ אָזְלִי בִּסְפִינְתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הֲוָה פִּיתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲוָה פִּיתָּא וְסוּלְתָּא. שְׁלִים פִּיתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, סְמַךְ אַסּוּלְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דְּהָוֵה לַן עִכּוּבָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי דְּאַיְתֵית סוּלְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוֹכָב אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה עוֹלֶה וּמַתְעֶה אֶת (הַסְּפִינוֹת) [הַסַּפָּנִים], וְאָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה וְיַתְעֶה [אוֹתָנוּ]. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל כָּךְ בְּיָדְךָ, וְאַתָּה עוֹלֶה בִּסְפִינָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה תָּמֵהַּ עָלַי, תְּמַהּ עַל שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְשַׁעֵר כַּמָּה טִפּוֹת יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, וְאֵין לָהֶם פַּת לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא בֶּגֶד לִלְבּוֹשׁ! נָתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹשִׁיבָם בָּרֹאשׁ. כְּשֶׁעָלָה, שָׁלַח לָהֶם וְלֹא בָּאוּ, חָזַר וְשָׁלַח וּבָאוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: כִּמְדוּמִּין אַתֶּם שֶׁשְּׂרָרָה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָכֶם? עַבְדוּת אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָכֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר אִם הַיּוֹם תִּהְיֶה עֶבֶד לָעָם הַזֶּה״.
§ Apropos a king, the Sages taught that when the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), this serves to exclude a king who is ill. The Gemara asks: Due to the fact that he is ill, is he removed from his sovereignty? Rav Avdimi bar Ḥama said: The reference is not to all illnesses; rather, it is to exclude a king who is afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated concerning King Azariah: “And the Lord afflicted the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in an independent house. And Jotham, son of the king, was over the household, judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5). Azariah was removed from his sovereignty when he was afflicted with leprosy. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the verse states: “In an independent house,” by inference it may be understood that until now he was a servant, i.e., he was in servitude to the people. The Gemara notes: This is similar to that incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling together on a ship. Rabban Gamliel had sufficient bread for the journey. Rabbi Yehoshua also had sufficient bread, and additionally he had flour. The journey lasted longer than expected, and Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished. He relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour for nourishment. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Did you know from the outset that we would have so substantial a delay? Is that the reason that you brought flour with you? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: There is one star that rises once in seventy years and misleads sailors at sea, causing their journeys to be extended. And I said: Perhaps that star will rise during our journey and mislead us. Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy. When Rabban Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them and they came. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you? ...
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. אִם נָשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר מַהוּ הֶדְיוֹט! וְאִם עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר מַהוּ זְדוֹנוֹ! מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר חָטָא מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ יְשַׁלֵּם״, וּבְיָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וַאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱטִיא״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר הוּא! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּשַׁנִּי קְרָא בְּדִבּוּרֵיהּ. דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״יֶשׁ הֶבֶל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה עַל הָאָרֶץ וְגוֹ׳״ – אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַבָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַבָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ צַדִּיקֵי אִי אָכְלִי תְּרֵי עָלְמֵי מִי סְנֵי לְהוּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אוֹקֵימְתּוּן מַסֶּכְתָּא פְּלָן וּמַסֶּכְתָּא פְּלָן? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיעַתְּרִיתוּ פּוּרְתָּא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּזְבַנַן קַטִּינָא דְּאַרְעָא. קָרֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ: אַשְׁרֵיהֶם לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה.
§ The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a king: “When [asher] a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22). Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Happy [ashrei] is the generation whose king feels the need to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression. If the generation’s king brings an offering, you must say all the more so what a commoner will do to atone for his sin, i.e., he will certainly bring an offering. And if the king brings an offering for his unwitting transgression, you must say all the more so what he will do to atone for his intentional transgression, i.e., he will certainly repent. Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, and the term asher is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that which is written: “And he shall pay for that which [asher] he has sinned from the sacred item” (Leviticus 5:16), and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nevat, about whom it is written: “Who [asher] sinned and caused others to sin” (I Kings 14:16), so too is the interpretation that this generation is happy? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of a king who brings an offering, it is different, as the verse altered its formulation; in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e.g., in the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). In the other instances, asher is the standard formulation. Apropos the homiletic interpretation of the term asher, Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “There is a vanity that is [asher] performed upon the earth; that there are [asher] righteous men to whom it happens according to [asher] the action of the wicked, and there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the action of the righteous” (Ecclesiastes 8:14)? Happy [ashrei] are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in the World-to-Come, i.e., they suffer in this world. Woe unto the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in the World-to-Come, i.e., they enjoy this world. Rava said: Is that to say that if the righteous enjoyed two worlds it would be awful for them? Why must the righteous suffer in this world? Rather, Rava said as follows: Happy are the righteous to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the wicked in this world, i.e., happy are the righteous who enjoy this world as well. Woe to the wicked, to whom it happens in this world according to the experiences of the righteous in this world, i.e., like the many righteous people who suffer in this world. The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came before Rava. Rava said to them: Have you mastered this tractate and that tractate? They said to him: Yes. Rava said to them: Have you become somewhat wealthy? They said to him: Yes, as each of us bought a parcel of land from which we earn our livelihoods. Rava proclaimed about them: Happy are the righteous, to whom it happens in this world according to the goodness resulting from the actions of the wicked in this world....
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רָשָׁע קָרֵית לֵיהּ? נְהִי דְּלָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, פֶּסַח מִי לָא קָאָכֵיל? אֶלָּא: מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, זֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, וְזֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, אֶחָד נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאֶחָד נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ, זֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ – ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָּם״, וְזֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ – ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״. מִי דָּמֵי? אֲנַן קָאָמְרִינַן חֲדָא דֶּרֶךְ, וְהָכָא שְׁנֵי דְּרָכִים! אֶלָּא מָשָׁל לְלוֹט וּשְׁתֵּי בְנוֹתָיו, הֵן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונוּ לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה – ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, הוּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון לְשֵׁם עֲבֵירָה – ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״. וְדִלְמָא הוּא נָמֵי לְשֵׁם מִצְוָה (הוּא מְכַוֵּין) [אִיכַּוַּון]! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, כׇּל הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה לְשֵׁם עֲבֵירָה נֶאֱמַר. ״וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט״ – ״וַתִּשָּׂא אֵשֶׁת אֲדֹנָיו אֶת עֵינֶיהָ״, ״אֶת עֵינָיו״ – ״וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן [וְגוֹ׳] אוֹתָהּ קַח לִי כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי״, ״וַיַּרְא״ – ״וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר״, ״אֶת כׇּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן״ – ״כִּי בְעַד אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה עַד כִּכַּר לָחֶם״, ״כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה״ – ״אֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי מְאַהֲבַי נֹתְנֵי לַחְמִי וּמֵימַי צַמְרִי וּפִשְׁתִּי שַׁמְנִי וְשִׁקּוּיָי״. וְהָא מֵינָס אֲנִיס! תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חוֹנִי: לָמָּה נָקוּד עַל וָיו שֶׁבְּ״קוּמָהּ״ שֶׁל בְּכִירָה? לוֹמַר לָךְ, שֶׁבְּשִׁכְבָהּ לָא יָדַע אֲבָל בְּקוּמָהּ יָדַע. וּמַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? מַאי דַּהֲוָה הֲוָה! נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דִּלְפַנְיָא אַחֲרִינָא לָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִישְׁתֵּי. דָּרֵשׁ רַבָּה, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אָח נִפְשָׁע מִקִּרְיַת עֹז וּמִדְיָנִים כִּבְרִיחַ אַרְמוֹן״? ״אָח נִפְשָׁע מִקִּרְיַת עֹז״ – זֶה לוֹט שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מֵאַבְרָהָם, ״וּמִדְיָנִים כִּבְרִיחַ אַרְמוֹן״ – שֶׁהֵטִיל מִדְיָנִים בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעַמּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה׳״. דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לְתַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּשׁ נִפְרָד (וּבְכָל) [בְּכָל] תּוּשִׁיָּה יִתְגַּלָּע״? ״לְתַאֲוָה יְבַקֵּשׁ נִפְרָד״ – זֶה לוֹט שֶׁנִּפְרָד מֵאַבְרָהָם. ״(וּבְכָל) [בְּכָל] תּוּשִׁיָּה יִתְגַּלָּע״ – שֶׁנִּתְגַּלָּה קְלוֹנוֹ בְּבָתֵּי כְּנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת. דִּתְנַן: עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי אֲסוּרִין אִסּוּר עוֹלָם.
Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Did you call the one who ate the Paschal offering for the sake of excessive eating wicked? Although he did not perform the mitzva in the ideal manner, didn’t he eat the Paschal offering? Since he fulfilled the mitzva, how can he be characterized as a transgressor? Rather, it is analogous to an incident involving two people; this one has his wife and his sister with him in a dark house and that one has his wife and his sister with him in a dark house. One of them, his wife happened to come to him and he engaged in intercourse with her, and the other one, his sister happened to come to him and he engaged in intercourse with her. With regard to that one, to whom his wife happened to come, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to that one, to whom his sister happened to come, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.” The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? In the verse, we are speaking of one path upon which both the righteous and the wicked walk, and here, in the incident mentioned by Reish Lakish, there are two paths, as the two people are not performing the same action. Rather, it is analogous to the incident involving Lot and his two daughters (see Genesis 19:30–38): With regard to the daughters, who, when engaging in intercourse with their father, intended their action for the sake of a mitzva, as they believed that the world had been destroyed and that only they remained alive, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to Lot, who intended his action for the sake of a transgression, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.” The Gemara challenges: Perhaps Lot too intended his action for the sake of a mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this entire verse: “And Lot cast his eyes and beheld the entire plain of the Jordan that it was well watered everywhere” (Genesis 13:10), is stated in the context of transgression. He explains: “And Lot cast his eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said: Lie with me” (Genesis 39:7). “His eyes” is an allusion to the verse: “And Samson said: Get her for me, as she is pleasing to my eyes” (Judges 14:3). “And beheld” is an allusion to the verse: “And Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of the land, beheld her; and he took her and lay with her” (Genesis 34:2). “The entire plain [kikar] of the Jordan” is an allusion to the verse: “For on account of a prostitute a man is brought to a loaf [kikar] of bread” (Proverbs 6:26). “That it was well watered [mashke] everywhere” is an allusion to the verse “I will follow my lovers, givers of my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink [veshikkuyai]” (Hosea 2:7). The Gemara asks: Why is Lot accused of wrongdoing? Wasn’t he the victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he was drunk and asleep? It is taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥoni: Why is it dotted over the letter vav that is in the word “bekumah” written with regard to Lot’s elder daughter in the verse: “And he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose [bekumah]” (Genesis 19:33)? It is to say to you that when she lay down he did not know; but when she arose, he knew. Therefore, his action was not completely beyond his control. The Gemara asks: And what was he to do? What was, was. The Gemara answers: He should have derived from it that on the following night he should not drink. Since he drank again, this indicates that he did so with intent to engage in intercourse with his other daughter. Apropos Lot, Rabba taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A brother betrayed a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle” (Proverbs 18:19)? “A brother betrayed a strong city”; that is Lot, who parted from Abraham. “And their contentions are like the bars of a castle” is stated because he, i.e., Lot, introduced contention between Israel and Ammon, as it is stated: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4). Rava taught, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak who taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He that separates himself seeks his own desire, and snarls against all sound wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1)? “He that separates himself seeks his own desire”; that is Lot, who separated from Abraham to pursue his lust. “And snarls [yitgalla] against all sound wisdom”; his shame was revealed [shenitgalla] in synagogues and study halls, where the halakha concerning his offspring is taught; as we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 76a): An Ammonite and a Moabite, descendants of Lot, are forbidden with a permanent prohibition....
וְאָמַר עוּלָּא: תָּמָר זִנְּתָה וְזִימְרִי זִינָּה. תָּמָר זִנְּתָה – יָצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים, זִימְרִי זִינָּה – נָפְלוּ כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גְּדוֹלָה עֲבֵירָה לִשְׁמָהּ מִמִּצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּבֹרַךְ מִנָּשִׁים יָעֵל אֵשֶׁת חֶבֶר הַקֵּינִי מִנָּשִׁים בָּאֹהֶל תְּבֹרָךְ״, מַאן נִינְהוּ ״נָשִׁים בָּאֹהֶל״? שָׂרָה, רִבְקָה, רָחֵל וְלֵאָה. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ. אֵימָא: כְּמִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁבַע בְּעִילוֹת בָּעַל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ כָּרַע נָפַל שָׁכָב וְגוֹ׳״. וְהָא קָא מִיתְהַנְיָא מֵעֲבֵירָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אֲפִילּוּ טוֹבָתָם שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים רָעָה הִיא אֵצֶל צַדִּיקִים. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּצְוֹת אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ בָּא לִשְׁמָהּ, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנַיִם קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב בָּלָק הָרָשָׁע, זָכָה וְיָצְתָה מִמֶּנּוּ רוּת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רוּת בַּת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל עֶגְלוֹן, בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב.
§ And Ulla says: Tamar engaged in licentiousness with Judah (see Genesis, chapter 38), and Zimri engaged in licentiousness with Cozbi (see Numbers 25:6–9). Tamar engaged in licentiousness, and kings and prophets emerged from her. Zimri engaged in licentiousness, and tens of thousands from the Jewish people fell. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: A transgression performed for the sake of Heaven is greater than a mitzva performed not for its own sake, as it is stated: “Blessed above women shall be Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, above women in the tent shall she be blessed” (Judges 5:24). Who are these “women in the tent”? They are Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, and Yael is more blessed than they are. Apparently, a mitzva performed not for its own sake is a negative phenomenon. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for its own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake. Apparently, even when performed not for its own sake a mitzva is still a positive phenomenon. The Gemara emends the statement: Say that the status of a transgression performed for the sake of Heaven is like that of a mitzva performed not for its own sake. Apropos Yael, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That wicked man Sisera performed seven acts of intercourse with Yael at that time, as it is stated: “Between her legs he crouched, he fell, he lay; between her legs he crouched, he fell; where he crouched, there he fell dead” (Judges 5:27). Each of the seven verbs is a euphemism for intercourse. The Gemara asks: But didn’t she experience pleasure from the transgression of engaging in intercourse with Sisera? Why does the verse praise her? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even the good provided by the wicked is bad for the righteous, so Yael did not experience any pleasure from her intercourse with Sisera. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for its own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake. Proof for this can be adduced from the incident involving Balak, as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak the wicked sacrificed to God, despite the fact that he did this in order to curse the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 23), he merited and Ruth emerged from him, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab....
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכַר שִׂיחָה נָאָה? מֵהָכָא, דְּאִילּוּ בְּכִירָה דִּקְרָיתֵיהּ מוֹאָב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה: ״אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָם מִלְחָמָה״. מִלְחָמָה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צַעוֹרֵי צַעֲרִינְהוּ. וְאִילּוּ צְעִירָה דִּקְרָיתֵיהּ ״בֶּן עַמִּי״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַל תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם״, כְּלָל, אֲפִילּוּ צַעוֹרֵי לָא. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקָּדְמָה בְּכִירָה לַצְּעִירָה, זָכְתָה וּקְדָמַתָּה אַרְבַּע דּוֹרוֹת לַמַּלְכוּת.
§ Apropos Lot and his daughters, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not withhold even the reward for euphemistic speech? It is derived from here, as the elder daughter called her son Moab, an allusion to the fact that the child is from her own father [me’av], and the Merciful One said to Moses: “Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Deuteronomy 2:9). From this it may be inferred: It is in battle that one may not contend with them, but it is permitted to harass them. While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter, who called her son ben Ami, son of my people, avoiding any direct mention of the baby’s father, God said to Moses: “Neither harass them, nor contend with them” (Deuteronomy 2:19), at all. Even to harass them is not permitted. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person should always be first to perform a matter of a mitzva, as in reward for one night that the elder daughter preceded the younger daughter, she merited and preceded her to royalty by four generations. Ruth the Moabite, ancestor of King David, descended from her son Moab, and she preceded Naamah the Ammonite, who was married to King Solomon, by four generations....
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לִמְשׁוּמָּד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאָשֵׁם״, הַשָּׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי הַמְנוּנָא: מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל הַדָּם – אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּמְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב – לְדָם נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד הָוֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לְדָם מִיהָא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ הוּא. וְהָא רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָם! אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּאוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה לְתֵאָבוֹן וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּלְתֵאָבוֹן אָכֵיל בְּמֵזִיד – מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַשְׁכַּח דְּהֶיתֵּרָא לָא אֲכַל דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לָאו מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָכַל חֵלֶב – זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר מָר: אָכַל חֵלֶב זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת כּוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָכַל חֵלֶב לְתֵאָבוֹן – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – הֲרֵי זֶה מִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד דְּבִסְתָמוֹ מִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֵל נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵיפָה, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כִּלְאַיִם דְּרַבָּנַן. מָר סָבַר: מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, דְּרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד. וּמָר סָבַר: כִּלְאַיִם כֵּיוָן דִּמְפַרְסַם אִסּוּרֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד.
§ The Sages taught: The verse states: “And if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents for that sin, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon bar Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: “If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty; or if his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him” (Leviticus 4:27–28). From the words “be known to him” it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., who would not have sinned had he known that the act was forbidden, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression and achieves atonement in this way. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would sin even after becoming aware that the act is forbidden, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether the halakha is derived from the earlier or later verse? Rav Hamnuna said: The difference between them is in the case of an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat; they disagree as to whether or not he brings an offering for unwittingly consuming blood. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he is an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat, he is also considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: With regard to consuming blood, in any event, he is one who repents due to his awareness, as he is not considered an apostate with regard to blood. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rava say that everyone agrees that an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat is not considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood? The Gemara answers: Rather, here it is with regard to a person who eats forbidden fat and an animal carcass due to appetite, e.g., only when he does not have access to kosher meat. And forbidden fat became confused for that person with permitted fat and he ate the forbidden fat. It is in that case that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he intentionally eats forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: Since if he finds food that is permitted he does not eat food that is prohibited, as he merely seeks to satiate his appetite, he is not an apostate. The Sages taught: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses or animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses, etc. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Why, after answering the question, does the tanna ask who is an apostate and then provide a different answer? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is what he is saying: If one ate forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. If he ate it to express insolence, this person is a heretic. And which is the apostate who is a presumptive heretic merely on the basis of his actions? You must say that it is one who eats an animal carcass or a tereifa, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Based on the fact that he violates serious transgressions for which one has no appetite such as repugnant creatures or creeping animals, it is clear that he is a heretic who denies the Torah in its entirety. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in the case of one who wears a garment of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen prohibited by rabbinic law. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: One who violates a prohibition by Torah law is an apostate; one who violates a prohibition by rabbinic law is not an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds: With regard to diverse kinds, since his violation of the prohibition is well known, as people see that he is wearing that garment, even though he violates a prohibition by rabbinic law, he is an apostate....
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לְתֵאָבוֹן – מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – מִין. וְחַד אָמַר: לְהַכְעִיס נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ מִין? כָּל הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מֵיתִיבִי: אָכַל פַּרְעוֹשׁ אֶחָד אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד. וְהָא הָכָא דִּלְהַכְעִיס הוּא, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ מְשׁוּמָּד! הָתָם דְּאָמַר: אֶטְעוֹם טַעַם דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: If one violated a prohibition due to appetite or convenience he is an apostate, while one who eats to express insolence is a heretic. And one said: One who violates a prohibition to express insolence is also an apostate. Rather, who is a heretic? It is anyone who engages in idol worship. The Gemara raises an objection to the first opinion from a baraita: If a person ate one flea or one mosquito, this person is an apostate. But here, isn’t it a case where it is a violation performed to express insolence, as one has no desire to eat these insects, and yet the tanna calls him an apostate? The Gemara answers: The reference there, in that baraita, is to the case of one who eats the flea due to appetite, as he says: I shall taste the flavor of prohibition. He seeks to eat a food that he has never eaten before.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מוֹשְׁחִין אֶת הַמְּלָכִים? כְּמִין נֵזֶר. וְאֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים? כְּמִין כִּי. מַאי ״כְּמִין כִּי״? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: כְּמִין כָּף יְוָנִי. תָּנֵי חֲדָא: בַּתְּחִלָּה מוֹצְקִין שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו. וְתַנְיָא אַחֲרִיתִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצְקִים לוֹ שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצֹק מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל רֹאשׁ אַהֲרֹן וַיִּמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ לְקַדְּשׁוֹ״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? קָסָבַר: שֶׁכֵּן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֵצֶל כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיִּצֹק״, וּבַסּוֹף ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַאי טַעַם ״וַיִּצֹק״? מִשּׁוּם דְּ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כַּשֶּׁמֶן הַטּוֹב [וְגוֹ׳] יֹרֵד עַל הַזָּקָן זְקַן אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳״ – כְּמִין שְׁנֵי טִפֵּי מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ תְּלוּיוֹת לְאַהֲרֹן בִּזְקָנוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְסַפֵּר, עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹשְׁבוֹת לוֹ בְּעִיקַּר זְקָנוֹ, וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם מָעַלְתִּי בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״כְּשֶׁמֶן הַטּוֹב וְגוֹ׳ כְּטַל חֶרְמוֹן״, מָה טַל חֶרְמוֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁבִּזְקַן אַהֲרֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה. וַעֲדַיִין הָיָה אַהֲרֹן דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אֲבָל אֲנִי מָעַלְתִּי? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״הִנֵּה מַה טּוֹב וּמַה נָּעִים שֶׁבֶת אַחִים גַּם יָחַד״, מָה מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אַף אַתָּה לֹא מָעַלְתָּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מוֹשְׁחִים אֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא עַל הַמַּעְיָין, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּמָּשֵׁךְ מַלְכוּתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לָהֶם קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם אֶת עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֵיכֶם [וְגוֹ׳] וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ אֶל גִּחוֹן״.
§ The Sages taught: How does one anoint the kings? One smears the oil in a manner that is similar to the form of a crown around his head. And how does one anoint the priests? One smears the oil in a shape like the Greek letter chi. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Like the Greek letter chi? Rav Menashya bar Gadda said: Like the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew letter kaf. It is taught in one baraita: Initially, they pour oil on the priest’s head, and thereafter, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes. And it is taught in a different baraita: Initially, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes, and thereafter, they pour oil on his head. The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im. Some say: Anointing with oil between his eyes is preferable and takes precedence, and some say: Pouring oil on his head is preferable and takes precedence. What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said that pouring oil on his head is preferable? It is as it is written: “And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), indicating that pouring precedes anointing. And the one who said that anointing is preferable and takes precedence, what is the reason for his opinion? He holds: Anointing takes precedence as that is what you find with regard to service vessels (see Numbers 7:1). They were anointed, but the anointing oil was not poured on them. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the priests: “And he poured,” and ultimately: “And anointed”? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: What is the reason that he poured the oil? It is due to the fact that he had already anointed them. Anointing is the primary component of the process. The Sages taught: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil, shaped like pearls, were suspended for Aaron from his beard. Rav Pappa said that it is taught: When Aaron would speak and his beard would move, those drops would miraculously rise and settle on the roots of his beard so that they would not fall. Moses was concerned about this matter. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, I misused the consecrated anointing oil and poured more than necessary, as two additional drops remain? A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments. Like the dew of Hermon” (Psalms 133:2–3). This analogy teaches: Just as there is no misuse of the dew of Hermon, which is not consecrated, so too, with regard to the anointing oil that is on Aaron’s beard, there is no misuse of consecrated property. And still Aaron was concerned. He said: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property; but perhaps I misused consecrated property, as the additional oil is on my beard and I enjoy it. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property. ...
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לִידַּע אִי מַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ אִי לָא, נִיתְלֵי שְׁרָגָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה יוֹמֵי דְּבֵין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּבֵיתָא דְּלָא נָשֵׁיב זִיקָא. אִי מָשֵׁיךְ נְהוֹרֵיהּ – נִידַּע דְּמַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ. וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד בְּעִיסְקָא, וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי מַצְלַח אִי לָא מַצְלַח, לִירַבֵּי תַּרְנְגוֹלָא. אִי שָׁמֵין וְשָׁפַר, מַצְלַח. הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיפַּק [לְאוֹרְחָא] וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי (חָזַר) [הָדַר] וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתָא, אִי לָא – נֵיקוּם בְּבֵיתָא דְּחַבָּרָא, אִי חָזֵי בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה לִידַּע דְּהָדַר וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתֵאּ. וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא, דִּלְמָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וּמִיתְּרַע מַזָּלֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ סִימָנָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, [לְעוֹלָם] יְהֵא רָגִיל לְמִיחְזֵי בְּרֵישׁ שַׁתָּא קָרָא וְרוּבְּיָא, כַּרָּתֵי וְסִילְקָא וְתַמְרֵי. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לִבְרֵיהּ: כִּי בָּעֵיתוּ מֵיעַל וּמִיגְמַרי קַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ, גְּרֻסוּ מַתְנִיתָא וְעַלּוּ לְקַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ. וְכִי יָתְבִיתוּ קַמֵּיהּ, חֲזוֹ לְפוּמֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״. וְכִי גָרְסִיתוּ, גְּרֻסוּ עַל נַהֲרָא דְּמַיָּא, דְּכִי הֵיכִי דְּמָשְׁכִן מַיָּא מׇשְׁכָן שְׁמַעְתָּתַיְיכוּ. וְתִיבוּ אַקִּילְקְלֵי דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא, וְלָא תִּיבוּ אַפַּדְנֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – טָב גִּלְדָּנָא סַרְיָא [דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא לְמֵיכַל], מִכּוּתָּחָא דְּרָמֵי כֵּיפֵי. ״רָמָה קַרְנִי בֵּאלֹהָי״, ״רָמָה קַרְנִי״ וְלֹא רָמָה פַּכִּי, דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּקֶרֶן – נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן, שָׁאוּל וְיֵהוּא שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּפַךְ – לֹא נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן.
§ Apropos good omens, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Ami said: This person who seeks to know if he will complete his year or if he will not, i.e., whether or not he will remain alive in the coming year, let him light a lamp, during the ten days that are between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, in a house in which wind does not blow. If its light continues to burn, he knows that he will complete his year. And one who seeks to conduct a business venture and wishes to know if he will succeed or if he will not succeed, let him raise a rooster. If the rooster grows fat and healthy, he will succeed. One who seeks to embark on a journey and wishes to know if he will return and come to his home or if he will not, let him go to a dark [daḥavara] house. If he sees the shadow of a shadow he shall know that he will return and come home. The Sages reject this: This omen is not a significant matter. Perhaps he will be disheartened if the omen fails to appear, and his fortune will suffer and it is this that causes him to fail. Abaye said: Now that you said that an omen is a significant matter, a person should always be accustomed to seeing these on Rosh HaShana: Squash, and fenugreek, leeks, and chard, and dates, as each of these grows quickly and serves as a positive omen for one’s actions during the coming year. Apropos good omens, Rav Mesharshiyya said to his son: When you seek to enter and study before your teacher, study the baraita first, and only then enter before your teacher. And when you are sitting before him, look to his mouth, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). And when you study, study adjacent to a river of water; just as the water flows, your studies will flow unimpeded. He added: And it is preferable for you to sit on the rubbish heaps [akilkelei] of Mata Meḥasya, and do not sit in the palaces [appadnei] of Pumbedita. Better to eat the rotten fish [gildana] of Mata Meḥasya than to eat kutḥa, which displaces rocks, a metaphor for how potent it is. ...
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ קוֹדֵם לָאִשָּׁה לְהַחֲיוֹת וּלְהָשֵׁב אֲבֵדָה. וְהָאִשָּׁה קוֹדֶמֶת לָאִישׁ לִכְסוּת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּית הַשְּׁבִי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִים בְּקַלְקָלָה – הָאִישׁ קוֹדֵם לָאִשָּׁה.
MISHNA: The man precedes the woman when there is uncertainty with regard to which of them to rescue or to return a lost item to first. And the woman precedes the man with regard to which of them to provide with a garment first, because her humiliation is great, or to release from captivity first, due to the concern that she will be raped. When they are both subject to degradation, i.e., there is also concern that the man will be raped in captivity, the release of the man precedes the release of the woman.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה הוּא וְאָבִיו וְרַבּוֹ בַּשֶּׁבִי – הוּא קוֹדֵם לְרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ קוֹדֵם לְאָבִיו. אִמּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְכוּלָּם. חָכָם קוֹדֵם לְמֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל: חָכָם שֶׁמֵּת – אֵין לָנוּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמֵּת – כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל רְאוּיִם לַמַּלְכוּת. מֶלֶךְ קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ (אֲלֵיהֶם) [לָהֶם] קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם (אוֹ מֵעַבְדֵי) [אֶת עַבְדֵי] אֲדֹנֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל קוֹדֵם לְנָבִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמָשַׁח אֹתוֹ שָׁם צָדוֹק הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתָן הַנָּבִיא״. הִקְדִּים צָדוֹק לְנָתָן. וְאוֹמֵר: ״שְׁמַע נָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל אַתָּה וְרֵעֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״. יָכוֹל הֶדְיוֹטוֹת הָיוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי אַנְשֵׁי מוֹפֵת הֵמָּה״, וְאֵין ״מוֹפֵת״ אֶלָּא נָבִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת״. מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה קוֹדֵם לִמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים. מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים קוֹדֵם לְמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ. מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ קוֹדֵם לְעָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ. עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ קוֹדֵם לִמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה קוֹדֵם לִסְגָן. סְגָן קוֹדֵם לַאֲמַרְכָּל. מַאי אֲמַרְכָּל? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָמַר כּוֹלָּא. אֲמַרְכָּל קוֹדֵם לְגִזְבָּר, גִּזְבָּר קוֹדֵם לְרֹאשׁ מִשְׁמָר, רֹאשׁ מִשְׁמָר קוֹדֵם לְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב, רֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.
GEMARA: Apropos precedence, the Sages taught in a baraita: If one and his father and his teacher were in captivity, his release precedes his teacher’s because one’s own life takes precedence, and his teacher’s release precedes his father’s release. His mother’s release precedes the release of all of them. A Torah scholar precedes the king of Israel, because in the case of a Sage who dies, we have no one like him, but in the case of a king of Israel who dies, all of Israel are fit for royalty. A king precedes a High Priest, as it is stated: “And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord” (I Kings 1:33). King David was referring to himself as lord when speaking to Zadok the priest. A High Priest precedes a prophet, as it is stated: “And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there” (I Kings 1:34); Zadok is written before Natan. And similarly, the prophet says: “Hear now, Joshua the High Priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you, for they are men that are a sign; for behold, I will bring forth My servant Zemah” (Zechariah 3:8). One might have thought that these colleagues were laymen. Therefore, the verse states: “For they are men that are a sign,” and “sign” means nothing other than a prophet, as it is stated: “And he gives you a sign or a wonder” (Deuteronomy 13:2). A High Priest anointed with anointing oil precedes a priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. A High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments precedes an anointed High Priest who stepped down, even if he did so due to his seminal emission. An anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his seminal emission precedes an anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his blemish. An anointed High Priest who stepped down due to his blemish precedes a priest anointed for war. A priest anointed for war precedes a deputy High Priest, who replaces the High Priest when he is unable to serve in the Temple. The baraita concludes: A deputy High Priest precedes the overseer [la’amarkal], one of the seven appointed officials in the Temple. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of amarkal? Rav Ḥisda said: Amarkal is a contraction for amar kulla, meaning: He says it all. The overseer of the Temple has the final word in matters concerning the administration of the Temple. The overseer precedes the Temple treasurer. The treasurer precedes the head of the priestly watch that would serve in the Temple for a period of one week at a time. The head of the priestly watch precedes the head of the patrilineal family. Each patrilineal family performed the Temple service for one day during the week of its priestly watch. The head of the patrilineal family precedes an ordinary priest....
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן קוֹדֵם לְלֵוִי, לֵוִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר, וּמַמְזֵר לְנָתִין, וְנָתִין לְגֵר, וְגֵר לְעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר. אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁכּוּלָּם שָׁוִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ – מַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ.
MISHNA: A priest precedes a Levite. A Levite precedes an Israelite. An Israelite precedes a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], and a mamzer precedes a Gibeonite, and a Gibeonite precedes a convert, and a convert precedes an emancipated slave. When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. But if there were a mamzer who is a Torah scholar and a High Priest who is an ignoramus, a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes a High Priest who is an ignoramus, as Torah wisdom surpasses all else.
יִשְׂרָאֵל קוֹדֵם לְמַמְזֵר – שֶׁזֶּה מְיוּחָס, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ מְיוּחָס. מַמְזֵר קוֹדֵם לְנָתִין – זֶה בָּא מִטִּפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, וְזֶה בָּא מִטִּפָּה פְּסוּלָה. נָתִין קוֹדֵם לְגֵר – זֶה גָּדַל עִמָּנוּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, וְזֶה לֹא גָּדַל עִמָּנוּ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה. גֵּר קוֹדֵם לְעֶבֶד מְשׁוּחְרָר – זֶה הָיָה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר.
An Israelite precedes a mamzer because this Israelite is of legitimate lineage and that mamzer is not of legitimate lineage and is disqualified from entering into the congregation of Israel. A mamzer precedes a Gibeonite because this mamzer comes from a fit drop of semen, i.e., from Jewish parentage, and that Gibeonite comes from an unfit drop of semen, from gentile parentage. A Gibeonite precedes a convert, as this Gibeonite grew among us in sanctity and conducted his life as a Jew, and that convert did not grow among us in sanctity. A convert precedes an emancipated Canaanite slave as this emancipated Canaanite slave was included in the category of the curse while he was enslaved, and that convert was not included in the category of the curse.
אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁכּוּלָּן שָׁוִין כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים״, מִכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְנָס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים.
The mishna teaches: When do these halakhot of precedence take effect? In circumstances when they are all equal in terms of wisdom. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “She is more precious than rubies [mipeninim]” (Proverbs 3:15). The Torah is more precious than the High Priest who enters the innermost sanctum [lifnai velifnim], the Holy of Holies.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִפְּנֵי מָה הַכֶּלֶב מַכִּיר אֶת קוֹנוֹ, וְחָתוּל אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֶת קוֹנוֹ? אָמַר לָהֶם: וּמָה הָאוֹכֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁעַכְבָּר אוֹכֵל – מְשַׁכֵּחַ, הָאוֹכֵל עַכְבָּר עַצְמוֹ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִפְּנֵי מָה הַכֹּל מוֹשְׁלִים בָּעַכְבָּרִים? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּוּרַן רַע. מַאי הִיא? רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ גְּלִימֵי גָּיְיצִי. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוּפְתָּא [דְּ]מָרָא גָּיְיצִי.
The students of Rabbi Elazar asked him: For what reason does a dog recognize its master, while a cat does not recognize its master? Rabbi Elazar said to them: If it is established that with regard to one who eats from that which a mouse eats, eating that item causes him to forget, with regard to the cat, who eats the mouse itself, all the more so does eating it cause it to forget. The students of Rabbi Eliezer asked him: For what reason do all predators dominate mice and prey on them? He said to them: Because concerning mice, their inclination [shesuran] is evil. The Gemara asks: What is the indication of this? Rava said: They gnaw even at cloaks, despite the fact that cloaks do not provide nourishment for them. Rav Pappa said: They gnaw even on the handle of a hoe....
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן. חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מְשַׁכְּחִים אֶת הַתַּלְמוּד: הָאוֹכֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁאוֹכֵל עַכְבָּר וּמִמַּה שֶּׁאוֹכֵל חָתוּל, וְהָאוֹכֵל לֵב שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, וְהָרָגִיל בְּזֵיתִים, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַיִם שֶׁל שִׁיּוּרֵי רְחִיצָה, וְהָרוֹחֵץ רַגְלָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמַּנִּיחַ כֵּלָיו תַּחַת מְרַאֲשׁוֹתָיו. חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מְשִׁיבִים אֶת הַתַּלְמוּד: פַּת פֶּחָמִין וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן פֶּחָמִין עַצְמָן, וְהָאוֹכֵל בֵּיצָה מְגוּלְגֶּלֶת בְּלֹא מֶלַח, וְהָרָגִיל בְּשֶׁמֶן זַיִת, וְהָרָגִיל בְּיַיִן וּבְשָׂמִים, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַיִם שֶׁל שִׁיּוּרֵי עִיסָּה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַטּוֹבֵל אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּמֶלַח וְאוֹכֵל. ״הָרָגִיל בְּשֶׁמֶן זַיִת״. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַזַּיִת מְשַׁכֵּחַ תַּלְמוּד שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, כָּךְ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת מֵשִׁיב תַּלְמוּד שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. ״וְהָרָגִיל בְּיַיִן וּבְשָׂמִים״. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: חַמְרָא וְרֵיחָנֵי פַּקַּחִין. ״וְהַטּוֹבֵל אֶצְבָּעוֹ בְּמֶלַח״, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: וּבְאַחַת. כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ. וְסִימָנָיךְ: קְמִיצָה.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There are five factors that cause one to forget his Torah study: One who eats from that which a mouse eats and from that which a cat eats, and one who eats the heart of an animal, and one who is accustomed to eating olives, and one who drinks water that remains from washing, and one who washes his feet with this foot atop that foot. And some say: Also one who places his garments under his head. Correspondingly, there are five factors that restore forgotten Torah study: Eating bread baked on coals and all the more so one who warms himself with the heat of the coals themselves, and one who eats a hard-boiled egg [beitza megulgelet] without salt, and one who is accustomed to eating olive oil, and one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices, and one who drinks water that remains from kneading dough. And some say: Also one who dips his finger in salt and eats it. The Gemara elaborates on the baraita: One who is accustomed to eating olive oil restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as eating an olive causes one to forget seventy years’ worth of Torah study, olive oil restores seventy years’ worth of Torah study. The baraita continues: And one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Wine and spices rendered me wise. The baraita continues: One who dips his finger in salt and eats it restores forgotten Torah study. Reish Lakish says: And that is the case with regard to one finger. The Gemara notes: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. Rabbi Yehuda says: One finger but not two. Rabbi Yosei says: Two fingers but not three. And your mnemonic for the fact that the dispute is between one and two fingers is kemitza, i.e., the ring finger. When one presses his ring finger to his palm, there remain two straight fingers on one side and one on the other....
עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים קָשִׁים לַתַּלְמוּד: הָעוֹבֵר תַּחַת הָאַפְסָר [הַגָּמָל] וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תַּחַת גָּמָל [עַצְמוֹ], וְהָעוֹבֵר בֵּין שְׁנֵי גְּמַלִּים, וְהָעוֹבֵר בֵּין שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, וְהָאִשָּׁה הָעוֹבֶרֶת בֵּין שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, וְהָעוֹבֵר מִתַּחַת רֵיחַ רַע שֶׁל נְבֵילָה, וְהָעוֹבֵר תַּחַת הַגֶּשֶׁר שֶׁלֹּא עָבְרוּ תַּחְתָּיו מַיִם אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְהָאוֹכֵל פַּת שֶׁלֹּא בָּשַׁל כׇּל צָרְכּוֹ, וְהָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר מִזּוּהֲמָא לִיסְטְרוֹן, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מֵאַמַּת הַמַּיִם הָעוֹבֶרֶת בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְהַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בִּפְנֵי הַמֵּת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַקּוֹרֵא כְּתָב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַקֶּבֶר.
Ten factors are detrimental for Torah study: One who passes beneath the bit of the camel, and all the more so one who passes beneath a camel itself; and one who passes between two camels; and one who passes between two women; and a woman who passes between two men; and one who passes beneath a place where there is the foul odor of an animal carcass; and one who passes under a bridge beneath which water has not passed for forty days; and one who eats bread that was not sufficiently baked; and one who eats meat from zuhama listeron, a utensil consisting of a spoon and a fork, used to remove the film on the surface of soup; and one who drinks from an aqueduct that passes through a cemetery; and one who gazes at the face of the dead. And some say: Also one who reads the writing that is on the stone of a grave.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּימֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נִישְׁנֵית מִשְׁנָה זוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נָשִׂיא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר חָכָם, רַבִּי נָתָן אַב בֵּית דִּין. כִּי הֲוָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם, הֲווֹ קָיְימִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִקַּמֵּיהּ. כִּי הֲווֹ עָיְילִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי נָתָן, הֲווֹ קָיְימִי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לָא בָּעוּ לְמִיהְוֵי הֶיכֵּרָא בֵּין דִּילִי לְדִידְהוּ? תַּקֵּין הָא מַתְנִיתָא. הָהוּא יוֹמָא לָא הֲווֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי נָתָן הָתָם, לִמְחַר כִּי אֲתוֹ חֲזוֹ דְּלָא קָמוּ מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ כְּדִרְגִילָא מִילְּתָא, אָמְרִי: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַרוּ לְהוּ: הָכִי תַּקֵּין רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְרַבִּי נָתָן: אֲנָא חָכָם וְאַתְּ אַב בֵּית דִּין, נְתַקֵּין מִילְּתָא כִּי לְדִידַן. מַאי נַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: גַּלִּי עוּקְצִים, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ. וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא גְּמִר, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״מִי יְמַלֵּל גְּבוּרוֹת ה׳ יַשְׁמִיעַ כׇּל תְּהִלָּתוֹ״, לְמִי נָאֶה לְמַלֵּל גְּבוּרוֹת ה׳ – מִי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַשְׁמִיעַ כׇּל תְּהִלּוֹתָיו. נְעַבְּרֵיהּ, וְהָוֵי אֲנָא אַב בֵּית דִּין וְאַתְּ נָשִׂיא. שַׁמְעִינְהוּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בֶּן קֻדְשַׁי, אֲמַר: דִּלְמָא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם אָתְיָא מִלְּתָא לִידֵי כִּיסּוּפָא, אֲזַל יְתֵיב אֲחוֹרֵי עִילִּיתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, פְּשַׁט, גְּרַס וּתְנָא, גְּרַס וּתְנָא. אָמַר: מַאי דְּקַמָּא? דִּלְמָא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם אִיכָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא מִידֵּי, יְהַב דַּעְתֵּיהּ וְגַרְסַהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר וְנִיתְנֵי בְּעוּקְצִין, פְּתַח וַאֲמַר. בָּתַר דְּאוֹקֵים, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא גְּמִירְנָא, כַּסֵּיפְיתֻּנַן. פַּקֵּיד וְאַפְּקִינְהוּ מִבֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. הֲווֹ כָּתְבִי קוּשְׁיָיתָא [בְּפִתְקָא] וְשָׁדוּ הָתָם. דַּהֲוָה מִיפְּרִיק – מִיפְּרִיק, דְּלָא הֲווֹ מִיפְּרִיק – כָּתְבִי פֵּירוּקֵי וְשָׁדוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: תּוֹרָה מִבַּחוּץ וְאָנוּ מִבִּפְנִים? אָמַר לָהֶן רַבָּן [שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן] גַּמְלִיאֵל: נִיעַיְּילִינְהוּ, מִיהוּ נִיקְנְסִינְהוּ דְּלָא נֵימְרוּ שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמַיְיהוּ. אַסִּיקוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲחֵרִים, וּלְרַבִּי נָתָן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. אַחְווֹ לְהוּ בְּחֶלְמַיְיהוּ: זִילוּ פַּיְּיסוּהוּ [לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל], רַבִּי נָתָן אֲזַל, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא אֲזַל, אֲמַר: דִּבְרֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. כִּי אֲזַל רַבִּי נָתָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: נְהִי דְּאַהֲנִי לָךְ קַמְרָא דַּאֲבוּךְ לְמֶהֱוֵי אַב בֵּית דִּין, שַׁוִּינָיךְ נָמֵי נָשִׂיא?! מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: אִילּוּ הָיָה תְּמוּרָה לֹא הָיָה קָרֵב. אָמַר לוֹ: מִי הֵם הַלָּלוּ שֶׁמֵּימֵיהֶם אָנוּ שׁוֹתִים וּשְׁמוֹתָם אֵין אָנוּ מַזְכִּירִים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁבִּקְּשׁוּ לַעֲקוֹר כְּבוֹדְךָ וּכְבוֹד בֵּית אָבִיךָ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״גַּם אַהֲבָתָם גַּם שִׂנְאָתָם גַּם קִנְאָתָם כְּבָר אָבָדָה״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָאוֹיֵב תַּמּוּ חֳרָבוֹת לָנֶצַח״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִלֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשַׂיְיהוּ, רַבָּנַן לָא אַהֲנוֹ מַעֲשַׂיְיהוּ! הֲדַר אַתְנִי לֵיהּ, אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִילּוּ הָיָה תְּמוּרָה לֹא הָיָה קָרֵב. אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי דְּעִנְוְותָנָא הוּא (תְּנָא), ״אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר״. ״אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר״ לָא אָמַר.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the preceding baraita, was taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi, Rabbi Meir was the Ḥakham, and Rabbi Natan was the deputy Nasi. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and them in terms of the manner in which deference is shown? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted the provisions delineated in this baraita that distinguish between the Nasi and his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them. That day, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there. The following day when they came to the study hall, they saw that the people did not stand before them as the matter was typically done. They said: What is this? The people said to them: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted. Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I am the Ḥakham and you are the deputy Nasi. Let us devise a matter and do to him as he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Reveal to us tractate Okatzim, which he does not know. And once it is clear to all that he did not learn, he will not have anything to say. Then we will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, shall make all His praises heard?” (Psalms 106:2), indicating: For whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of the Lord? It is becoming for one who is capable of making all His praises heard, and not for one who does not know one of the tractates. We will remove him from his position as Nasi, and I will be deputy Nasi and you will be Nasi. Rabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard them talking, and said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, this matter will come to a situation of humiliation for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so he went and sat behind the upper story where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived. He explained tractate Okatzin; he studied it aloud and repeated it, and studied it aloud and repeated it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to himself: What is this that is transpiring before us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is something transpiring in the study hall. He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. He concentrated and studied tractate Okatzin. The following day Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan said to him: Let the Master come and teach a lesson in tractate Okatzin. He began and stated the lesson he had prepared. After he completed teaching the tractate, he said to them: If I had not studied the tractate, you would have humiliated me. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commanded those present and they expelled Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan from the study hall as punishment. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would write difficulties on a scrap of paper [pitka] and would throw them there into the study hall. Those difficulties that were resolved were resolved; as for those that were not resolved, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan wrote resolutions on a scrap of paper and threw them into the study hall. Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: How is it that the Torah, embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, is outside and we are inside? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit them into the study hall. But we will penalize them in that we will not cite halakha in their names. They cited statements of Rabbi Meir in the name of Aḥerim, meaning: Others, and they cited statements of Rabbi Natan in the name of yesh omerim, meaning: Some say. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were shown a message in their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Natan went. Rabbi Meir did not go. He said in his heart: Matters of dreams are insignificant. When Rabbi Natan went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: Although the ornate belt, i.e., the importance, of your father was effective in enabling you to become deputy Nasi, as Rabbi Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch, will it render you Nasi as well? Years later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabban Shimon his son that Aḥerim say: If it was considered a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son said to him: Who are these Sages whose water we drink but whose names we do not mention? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: They are people who sought to abolish your honor and the honor of your father’s house. His son said to him, citing the verse: “Their love as well as their hatred and their envy is long ago perished” (Ecclesiastes 9:6): That was long ago and they have already died. Therefore, there is no harm in mentioning their names. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: But it is also stated: “The enemy are come to an end; the wasted places are forever” (Psalms 9:7). Although the enemies died, the desolation that they created remains. Therefore, although they are dead, their names should not be mentioned. Rabban Shimon said to his father: These matters apply in a case where their actions were effective. In the case of these Sages, their actions were not effective. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then taught him: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If it was considered a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. Rava said: Even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who is humble, taught: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir. But he did not say directly: Rabbi Meir said....
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר: סִינַי עֲדִיף, וְחַד אָמַר: עוֹקֵר הָרִים עֲדִיף. רַב יוֹסֵף סִינַי, רַבָּה עוֹקֵר הָרִים. שְׁלַחוּ לְתַמָּן: אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם קוֹדֵם? שְׁלַחוּ לְהוּ: סִינַי עֲדִיף, דְּאָמַר מָר: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין לְמָרֵי חִטַּיָּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא קַבֵּיל רַב יוֹסֵף עֲלֵיהּ. מְלַךְ רַבָּה עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁנִין, וַהֲדַר מְלַךְ רַב יוֹסֵף. וְכֹל שְׁנֵי דִּמְלַךְ רַבָּה, רַב יוֹסֵף אֲפִילּוּ אוּמָּנָא לְבֵיתֵיהּ לָא (חֲלֵיף). אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא וְרַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבָּה בַּר מַתְנָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי וַהֲווֹ צְרִיכִי רֵישָׁא, אָמְרִי: כֹּל דְּאָמַר מִלְּתָא וְלָא מִפְּרִיךְ, לֶהֱוֵי רֵישָׁא. דְּכוּלְּהוּ אִיפְּרִיךְ, דְּאַבָּיֵי לָא אִיפְּרִיךְ. חַזְיֵיהּ רַבָּה לְאַבָּיֵי דִּגְבַהּ רֵישֵׁאּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַחְמָנִי, פְּתַח וְאֵימָא. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב מַתְנָה הֵי מִנַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? רַבִּי זֵירָא חָרִיף וּמַקְשֶׁה, וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב מַתְנָה מָתוּן וּמַסֵּיק, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this matter. One said: Sinai, i.e., one who is extremely knowledgeable, is preferable; and one said: One who uproots mountains, i.e., one who is extremely incisive, is preferable. The Gemara relates that this is not merely a theoretical dispute; rather, at one point it had practical ramifications. Rav Yosef was Sinai; Rabba was one who uproots mountains. They sent a message from Babylonia to there, Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence? They sent in response: Sinai is preferable, as the Master said: Everyone requires the owner of the wheat, i.e., one who is expert in the sources. And even so, Rav Yosef did not accept upon himself the appointment of head of the yeshiva. Rabba reigned for twenty-two years, and then Rav Yosef reigned. The Gemara relates that in all those years that Rabba presided, Rav Yosef did not even call a bloodletter to his home. Rav Yosef did not assume even the slightest air of authority, in deference to Rabba, and would go to seek out the bloodletter rather than expecting that the bloodletter would accommodate him. The Gemara relates: Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Mattana were sitting and studying in a group and were in need of a head for their group. They said: Let anyone who will say a matter that is not refuted be the head. Everyone’s statements were refuted, and the statement of Abaye was not refuted. Rabba saw that Abaye raised his head, i.e., he noticed that his statement was not refuted. Rabba said to him: Naḥmani, calling Abaye by his name rather than by his nickname, begin and say your lecture. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Between Rabbi Zeira and Rabba bar Rav Mattana, which of them is preferable? Rabbi Zeira is incisive and raises pertinent difficulties, and Rabba bar Rav Mattana is moderate and not so incisive, but ultimately he draws the appropriate conclusions. What is the conclusion? Which is preferable? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved....