Matches whole token sequences only within bold translation text (b/strong tags); overlapping matches are assigned to the longest matching entry in the full gazetteer, including excluded entries. Shorter names inside an excluded longer name do not count. Separate standalone occurrences still count. Commentary cannot trigger a match. Matching translation text is highlighted in yellow; each result includes the full section. Apostrophe variants and whitespace are normalized for matching. The legacy CSV is Windows-1252; its question-mark placeholders are interpreted as ḥ/Ḥ for matching using the archived builder's rule. Displayed HTML restores these ḥ/Ḥ placeholders while retaining source wording and formatting. Each citation links to its passage on Bekiut. Results are the first three distinct sections in CSV order; counts cover all matching sections. All eligible names, including those without a match, are listed.
A certain apostate once said to Rabbi Abbahu: You say that the souls of the righteous are stored beneath the Throne of Glory, but if so, how did the oracle woman raise up Samuel using necromancy if his soul was no longer in this world? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: There, it was within twelve months of his death, as it was taught in a baraita: For a full twelve months a deceased person’s body remains and his soul ascends and descends, such that it is sometimes in this world with its body. After twelve months, the body ceases to exist
Rabbi Oshaya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The righteous acts of His rulers [pirzono] in Israel” (Judges 5:11)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations; had He exiled them to one place, they could have all been destroyed at once. And this concept is that which a certain apostate said to Rabbi Ḥanina: We gentiles are superior to you Jews in that we have patience. It is written of you: “For Joab and all Israel remained there six months until he had cut off every male in Edom” (I Kings 11:16), whereas we, although you have been with us for several years, are not doing anything to you. He said to him: With your consent, let one student deal with your assertion and answer you.
The Gemara continues to discuss the issue: One who needed to defecate and is unable to do so, Rav Ḥisda said: He should stand and sit, stand and sit. Rav Ḥanan from Neharde’a said: He should move to the sides and attempt to relieve himself in a different spot. Rav Hamnuna said: He should manipulate with a stone in that place. And the Rabbis said: He should divert his thoughts to other matters. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: All the more so that when he diverts his thoughts he will not be able to defecate. Rav Ashi said to him: He should divert his thoughts from other matters, and focus exclusively on his effort to relieve himself. Rav Yirmeya from Difti said: I saw a certain Arab who stood and sat, stood and sat, until it poured out of him like a pot. Apparently, that advice is effective.
It is reported that a certain Arab was sick with jaundice. He said to the gardener: Take my cloak and give me a row of leeks in exchange. The gardener gave him the row and he ate it. The Arab said to the gardener: Lend me your cloak and I will sleep in it for a short while. The gardener gave it to him and he wrapped himself in it and slept. When he got hot and stood up pieces fell from the cloak bit by bit because the cloak had become very hot from the Arab’s sweat. The Arab tricked the gardener, who ultimately received nothing.
One day he drank a lot, and he did not know how much he drank. Until he drank sixteen cups, he was lucid and was careful with regard to himself, to keep track of how many cups he had drunk. From here onward he was not lucid and was not careful to watch himself, and she caused him to leave after having consumed a pair, i.e., an even number of cups. As he walked, a certain Arab met him and, noticing that he was bewitched, said to him: It is a dead man who walks here. He went and hugged a palm tree for support; the palm tree dried out due to the witchcraft, and he burst.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain Arab merchant woman [taya’ata] who brought a sack [Ḥayeta] of phylacteries in front of Abaye. He said to her: Would you give me each pair for a date? She became full of anger, and took the phylacteries and threw them into the river because Abaye offered her such a small amount in exchange for them. Abaye said in remorse: I should not have denigrated the phylacteries so much in her presence, but rather, I should have offered to pay her their actual value.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Any woman whose breasts are larger than those of other women, this is a blemish. The Gemara poses a question: And how much larger must they be to be considered a blemish? Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If they are a handbreadth larger than the norm. The Gemara inquires: And is there a case like this? Is it possible for a woman to have such large breasts? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said: I once saw a certain Arab woman who flung her breasts behind her and nursed her child.
The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered Neharde’a and opened many barrels of wine. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident that was brought before Rabbi Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted. But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a gentile army, the ancillaries were mostly Jews.
Apropos paternity, the Gemara relates: There was a certain betrothed man and his betrothed, who was pregnant, who came before Rav Yosef. She said that she conceived from relations with him, and he said:
Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? It happened that there was a certain blind man who would review mishnayot before Mar Shmuel. One day the blind man was late for him and was not arriving. Mar Shmuel sent a messenger after him to assist him. While the messenger was going to the blind man’s house by one way, the blind man arrived at the house of study by a different route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. When the messenger came back, he said that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that his wife committed adultery. The blind man came before Mar Shmuel to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel said to him: If this messenger is trusted by you, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain blind man who was living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yoḥanan who would serve as a judge, and Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say anything to him. The Gemara asks: How did he do this, i.e., allow the blind man to judge? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say: The halakha is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna, and we learned in an unattributed mishna (Nidda 49b): Anyone who is fit to judge is fit to testify, but there are those who are fit to testify but not fit to judge. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The latter clause serves to include one who is blind in one of his eyes, who is fit to testify but is not fit to judge. All the more so Rabbi Yoḥanan would agree that the unattributed mishna holds that one blind in both eyes is disqualified from serving as a judge.
It is further related that Rav had a complaint against a certain butcher who insulted him. The butcher did not come before him to apologize. On Yom Kippur eve, Rav said: I will go and appease him. He met his student Rav Huna, who said to him: Where is my Master going? He said to him: I am going to appease so-and-so. Rav Huna called Rav by his name and said: Abba is going to kill a person, for surely that person’s end will not be good. Rav went and stood by him. He found the butcher sitting and splitting the head of an animal. The butcher raised his eyes and saw him. He said to him: Are you Abba? Go, I have nothing to say to you. While he was splitting the head, one of the bones of the head flew out and struck him in the throat and killed him, thereby fulfilling Rav Huna’s prediction.
§ The Gemara relates that a certain butcher behaved disrespectfully toward Rav Tuvi bar Mattana. Abaye and Rava were appointed to the case and ostracized him. In the end the butcher went and appeased his disputant, Rav Tuvi. Abaye said: What should we do in this case? Shall he be released from his decree of ostracism? His decree of ostracism has not yet been in effect for the usual thirty days. On the other hand, shall he not be released from ostracism? But the Sages wish to enter his shop and purchase meat, and they are presently unable to do so. What, then, is the most appropriate course of action?
When they reached Tiberias a certain child opened his eulogy saying as follows: The shoot of an ancient line, i.e., Rabba bar Rav Huna, who was the descendant of great people, has ascended from Babylonia, and with him is the book of wars, i.e., Rav Hamnuna, who was great in Torah, which is referred to as the book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14). The curses of the pelican and the bittern, which are symbols of the destruction of the Temple (Isaiah 34:11), have been doubled, to see the ruin and brokenness that has come from Shinar, i.e., Babylonia. The Lord became angry with His world and seized souls from it, and He rejoices over them when they come to Him like a new bride. God who rides upon the clouds is joyous and happy when an innocent and righteous soul comes to Him.
The Gemara asks: And still, is there no other case where offhand remarks made by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted by Torah law? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, didn’t he say that Rav Ḥana of Carthage [Kartigna], and some say that it was Rav Aḥa of Carthage, related: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say that this incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to a certain child who was speaking offhandedly and said: My mother and I were captured and held among the gentiles. When I would go out to draw water, my mind was on my mother, and when I would go out to gather wood, my mind was on my mother. Since the child was always conscious of his mother, he was aware that she was not violated by her captors.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesses on your behalf? The child said to them: No. They continued to ask: Do you have evidence? The child said to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable, in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain deaf-mute man who was in the neighborhood of Rav Malkiyyu. Rav Malkiyyu married him to a woman, and he wrote four-hundred dinars for her from the property of the deaf-mute as her marriage contract. Rava said: Who is as wise as Rav Malkiyyu, as he is a great man who found a way to achieve a desirable result by giving her a marriage contract, despite the fact that the deaf-mute was not obligated to do so. Rav Malkiyyu reasoned as follows: If that deaf-mute man wanted a maidservant to attend to him, would we not acquire one for him? All the more so here, as there are two advantages, for she will attend to his needs both as a maidservant and as a wife.
§ The Gemara relates another tradition with regard to that occasion when the omer came from Gaggot Tzerifin and the two loaves from the valley of Ein Sokher: When it came time to bring the omer meal offering, they did not know from where they could bring the omer grain, as all the surrounding fields were looted and ruined. The court publicly proclaimed their difficulty. A certain deaf-mute [Ḥersha] came forward and stretched out one hand toward a roof,gag in Hebrew, and one hand toward a hut [atzerifa]. Mordekhai said to the Sages: Is there a place that is called Gaggot Tzerifin or Tzerifin Gaggot? They checked and found that there was such a place, and it contained fields of barley from which they were able to bring the omer meal offering.
A similar incident occurred when they needed to bring the two loaves, and they did not know from where to bring the grain. Again the court publicly proclaimed their difficulty, and a certain deaf-mute came forward and stretched out one hand toward his eye [a’eineih] and one hand toward a door latch [assikhera]. Mordekhai said to the Sages: And is there a place that is called: Ein Sokher, or Sokher Ayin? They checked and found that there was such a place, and it contained fields of wheat from which they were able to bring the two loaves.
Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging [ushpiza] so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon.
The Master said in the Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that it does not require anything to render it permitted to carry within it. But didn’t we learn in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that carrying in an alleyway of that sort is permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel have said that according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even that minimal action is unnecessary?
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anywhere that you find a statement introduced with: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, it is none other than Rabbi Meir, who was the student who served both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva.
And some time later there was another incident involving a certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal’s head on a Festival. A certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found him and said to him: What is this placing of hands? Why do you place your hands on the animal’s head and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai? He said to him: What is this silence? Why do you not stay silent, as the halakha was not established in accordance with their opinion? He silenced him with a rebuke, and he, Beit Shammai’s disciple, departed quietly.
And some time later there was another incident involving a certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal’s head on a Festival. A certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found him and said to him: What is this placing of hands? Why do you place your hands on the animal’s head and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai? He said to him: What is this silence? Why do you not stay silent, as the halakha was not established in accordance with their opinion? He silenced him with a rebuke, and he, Beit Shammai’s disciple, departed quietly.
It was taught in the Tosefta: A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of ring and another type of ring. However, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to the matter of Shabbat; a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. As, with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, this ring and that ring are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the sick eat gourds? But Rabbi Yirmeya fell ill, and a certain doctor came to him to heal him. He saw a gourd that was placed in his house, and he left Rabbi Yirmeya and exited the house and said: This person has an angel of death, a gourd, in his house, and I will enter to heal him? This incident teaches that gourds are detrimental for the sick.
An answer was provided to Rabbi Yoḥanan when a certain elder taught him in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: This conclusion is derived from a verbal analogy between the words iniquity and iniquity. Here, it is written: “With mercy and truth, iniquity is expiated,” and there it is written: “He repays the iniquity of the fathers onto the bosom of their children” (Jeremiah 32:18). Because he “repays the iniquity of the fathers onto the bosom of their children,” the father’s transgressions are forgiven.
A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yoḥai purified the cemetery. Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say: If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw Yehuda, son of converts, who was the cause of this entire incident. Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He directed his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.
A certain Elder raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case where the root of a plant in a perforated pot is opposite the hole, what would Rabbi Shimon say in terms of whether or not it is considered attached to the ground? He was silent and did not say anything to him. The Gemara relates that once the same Elder found Rabbi Zeira, who was sitting and saying: And Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the hole in the flowerpot is large enough to render it ritually pure, i.e., unable to hold olives, it is considered attached to the earth with regard to Shabbat. He said to him: Now, I raised a dilemma before you as to Rabbi Shimon’s ruling in a case where the root is opposite the hole, and you did not say anything to me. With regard to a case where the root is not actually opposite the hole, but its hole is large enough to render it pure, do you need to tell me that the dilemma whether or not it is considered detached is unresolved? Rather, this must certainly be understood differently.
On that day, when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai’s view, Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel, and they sought to establish the halakha in this regard in accordance with their opinion. But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter. And he sent for
A certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name. He said to them: This is the tradition that I received from Shammai the Elder: Egg white on a bedsheet contracts and hardens when heated by fire, whereas semen is absorbed into the sheet by the fire. They checked the matter and found in accordance with his statement that the substance on the sheet was not semen but egg white. They then brought the husband to court, administered lashes to him, and made him pay his wife’s marriage contract in full.
And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What type of dissolution did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: Anyone who verbally expresses the language of a vow, it is appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but he has another option: “The tongue of the wise is health,” since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution.
Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her to remarry immediately after her husband died or did you permit her only after twelve months? Did you permit her to remarry immediately after the husband died, because he will certainly not come back? Or perhaps you permitted her to remarry only after twelve months, because only then was the husband’s condition fulfilled?
Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man, who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her immediately after the husband died, as he certainly will not arrive within the twelve months, or perhaps you permitted her only after twelve months, because only then was the condition fulfilled?
The Gemara asks: Adornment of a person, what is it? The Gemara relates: It is as in that incident involving a certain elderly slave who went and dyed his head and beard black to create a younger impression. He came before Rava and said to him: Purchase me as your slave. Rava said to him that there is a rabbinic adage: Let the poor be members of your household. I follow their advice and therefore do not require a slave. If I need assistance, the paupers who frequent my house can assist me.
§ The mishna teaches: But one who enters the Temple while wearing those garments upon which a Samaritan had lain is not liable to bring an offering for entering the Temple, nor does one burn teruma that came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these halakhot, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa happened to come to the city of Tavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches mishnayot; may it be God’s will that you should be like him.
Similarly, the Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira died, a certain eulogizer opened his eulogy for him with these words: The land of Shinar, i.e., Babylonia, Rabbi Zeira’s birthplace, conceived and bore him; the land of the deer, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, where Rabbi Zeira lived as an adult and rose to prominence, raised her delights. Woe unto her, said Rakkath, for she has lost her precious instrument. It is apparent from these examples that Rakkath is Tiberias.
§ The Gemara continues recounting other famous eulogies. When Ravina passed away, a certain eulogizer opened his eulogy for him with the following words: Date-palms, hang your heads in sadness over the righteous man who may be likened to a date-palm. Let us make, our nights like days in weeping, over a man who made his nights like days studying the Torah.
It was related that Rabbi Ḥanin was a son-in-law in the house of the Nasi. At first he did not have any children, but he prayed that God have mercy on him, and then had a child. On the same day that a son was born to him, he himself passed away. A certain eulogizer opened his eulogy for him with the following words: Happiness has been turned into sorrow; joy and suffering have become joined together. At the moment of his happiness he sighed his dying breath. At the moment he was graced with a son, his own grace was lost. And they named the child Ḥanan after his father.
Having quoted some aphorisms of the Sages, the Gemara relates the following conversation: A certain eunuch who was an apostate said the following to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa as a provocation: How far is it from here to Karḥina? The provocateur’s intention was to hint to the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa was bald [kere’a?]. He said to him: It is the same as the distance from here to the mountains of Gozen, hinting at the eunuch’s castration, which in Aramaic is goza (Rav Ya’akov Emden). The apostate said to him: A bald buck is sold for fourdinar. He said to him: A castrated goat [ikkara shelifa] is sold for eight.
The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members used to die at the age of eighteen, and they did not know why. They came and told Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai about their situation. He said to them: Perhaps you are descended from the family of Eli, as it is written about them: “And all the increase of your house shall die young men” (I Samuel 2:33). If indeed this is so, the remedy is as follows: Go and engage in Torah study, in the merit of which you will live. They went and engaged in Torah study and lived. And people would call that family afterward by the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan in his honor.
The Gemara relates a similar story from a baraita: The Sages taught: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose children were dying at around age eighteen. The members of the family came and told Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai about these tragic deaths. He said to them: Perhaps you are from the house of Eli, as it is stated: “All the increase of your house shall die young men” (I Samuel 2:33), which teaches that as soon as they reach full maturity, old enough to be called “men,” they die. Therefore, you must go out and immerse yourselves in Torah, and you will live. They went and immersed themselves in Torah and lived longer lives, and people would call them: The family of Yoḥanan, after his name, as the advice he gave them enabled them to live.
§ In connection with the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis whether an animal owned in partnership with a gentile has firstborn status, the Gemara relates the following incident: There was a certain female convert whose gentile brothers would give her animals to fatten and would then divide the profits with her. She came before Rava to ask whether firstborn status applies to the firstborn of these animals. Rava said to her: There is no one who is concerned with this ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, who says an animal owned in partnership with a gentile is obligated, i.e., subject to counting its first offspring a firstborn.
The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain female owner of a wine shop who transferred the key [iklida] to the door of her wine shop to a gentile woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Elazar said: There was a similar incident that was brought before the Sages in the study hall, and they said: She transferred to her the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone but did not authorize her to enter the tavern, so there is no concern that she entered there.
Rav Kahana strongly objected to this: And does a person turn his money into a loss [anparot]? In doing so, he ruins both the lime and the wine. Rather, Rav Kahana said: This lime is not placed inside the vessel, but it is used to make markings on the outside of the vessel to measure the contents of the vessel, as we learned in a mishna: In the Temple, there were markings on the hin vessel to measure wine. These would indicate that when it is filled to here, that is the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of an ox, half a hin; when it is filled to here, the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of a ram, a third of a hin; when it is filled to here, the measure of wine required for the libation of the sacrifice of a sheep, a quarter of a hin. And if you wish, say instead: What is andifa? It is the forehead upon which lime is smeared, not to remove hairs, but to pamper and soften the skin. Thick lime can be used for this purpose. And proof for that is cited from a certain Galilean who happened to come to Babylonia, to whom they said: Stand and teach us the esoteric Act of the Divine Chariot [Ma’aseh Merkava]. He said to them: I will teach it to you as Rabbi Neḥemya taught it to his colleague. And a hornet emerged from the wall and stung him on his forehead [andifi] and he died. Apparently, andifi means forehead. And with regard to the incident itself, they said about him, in a play on words: From his own, that came to him [min dilei da lei]. He was punished for his arrogance in seeking to teach Ma’aseh Merkava publicly.
The Gemara asks: What is this mashkukhit? Here, in Babylonia, they translate it as a bell [karkashta] that the shepherd rings and whose sound the flock follows. Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is referring to the goat that goes at the front of the flock that they follow. The Gemara notes: This explanation of Rabbi Ya’akov is similar to that which a certain Galilean taught in the presence of Rav Ḥisda concerning this goat: When a shepherd is angry with his flock, he renders the goat leading [lenaggada] them, i.e., the mashkukhit, blind. Similarly, when God is angry with the Jewish people, he appoints unsuitable leaders for them.
A certain Galilean taught before Rav Ḥisda: There is a parable for the actions of Elijah; to what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a man who slammed his door and lost his key. Elijah first prevented the rain from falling, and then no longer had possession of the key to enable it to fall again.
With regard to lime, the Gemara relates: Rav Beivai had a daughter. He smeared her with lime limb by limb and, as a result, she became so beautiful that when marrying her off, he received four hundred zuz in gifts for her beyond her dowry. There was a certain gentile in Rav Beivai’s neighborhood. He had a daughter and wanted to do the same. He smeared her entire body with lime at one time and she died. He said: Rav Beivai killed my daughter. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Beivai, who drinks beer, his daughters require that they be smeared with lime, as beer causes hair growth; we, who do not drink beer, our daughters do not require that they be smeared with lime.
The Gemara relates that Shmuel happened to come to the house of Avin Toran. A certain gentile came and kindled a lamp. Shmuel turned his face back away from the lamp in order to avoid benefitting from the light. When Shmuel saw that the gentile brought a document and was reading it, he said: He kindled it with his own benefit in mind. He turned his face back toward the lamp.
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.
§ A gentile slave purchased by a Jew must be circumcised and then immersed in a ritual bath. By being immersed for the sake of slavery, he takes on the status of a full slave, which, among other things, obligates him to keep certain mitzvot. However, if the slave, or any gentile, is immersed for the sake of conversion, he then becomes a full Jew and fully obligated in mitzvot like any other Jew. The Gemara considers the result of different intentions accompanying an immersion: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami’s slave immersed a certain gentile woman for the sake of having intimate relations, i.e., to purify her from her menstrual impurity. Rav Yosef said: I am able to render both her and her daughter fit to marry into the congregation of Israel.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: An incident occurred involving a certain gentile woman who was very ill. She said: If that woman, referring to herself, recovers from her illness, she will go and worship every object of idol worship in the world. She recovered from her illness and subsequently worshipped every object of idol worship in the world. When she arrived at Peor she asked the priests: How does one worship this idol? They said to her: One eats spinach, which causes diarrhea, and drinks beer, which also causes diarrhea, and defecates before it. The woman said: Better for that woman, referring to herself, to return to her illness, and not worship an idol in such a manner.
The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Ba’al-Peor. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a Jew named Sabbeta ben Alas, who rented out his donkey and his services to a certain gentile woman. He was driving his donkey behind her, and when she arrived at Peor, she said to him: Wait here until I go in and come out. After she came out, he said to her: You too wait for me until I go in and come out. She said to him: Aren’t you Jewish? Why, then, are you worshipping idols? He said to her: And what do you care? He entered and defecated before the idol, and wiped himself with its nostril, as he wanted to demean the idol as much as possible. But he was unsuccessful, as the priests of Peor were praising him and saying: No person has ever worshipped it before with this excellent form of worship. Although he intended to demean Ba’al-Peor, he actually worshipped it.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village [kufri] dog used for hunting sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood, as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.
He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥananya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any woman for whom three typical menstrual cycles passed during which she saw no menstrual blood, if she experiences bleeding, her time is sufficient. Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of a pregnant woman and a nursing woman for whom three menstrual cycles passed during which they saw no menstrual blood, if she then saw blood her time is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer cites a proof for his opinion. It is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain girl in the village of Hitlo who stopped menstruating for three typical menstrual cycles, after which she experienced menstruation. And the matter came before the Sages, and they said that her time is sufficient and she does not transmit impurity retroactively.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who said to a debtor: Give me one hundred dinars for the money that I repaid the creditor on your behalf, and this is the document that I received from him when I repaid your debt. The debtor said to the guarantor: Is it not so that I repaid you? The guarantor said to the debtor: Yes, you did, but is it not so that you later took the money from me again?
The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who had guaranteed a loan given by a gentile, who repaid the gentile creditor before the gentile creditor claimed repayment from the orphans who survived the debtor. The guarantor now sought reimbursement from the orphans. Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Avimi of Hagronya said in the name of Rava: Even according to the one who says that we are concerned for the possibility that the deceased may have given bundles of money to the creditor before his death, this statement applies only in the case of a Jewish creditor. But in the case of a gentile creditor, since according to gentile law he is entitled to go directly to a guarantor, we are not concerned for the possibility that the deceased may have given bundles of money. The debtor would not repay the gentile before the loan is due, as the latter has the right to collect directly from the guarantor, and would thereby receive double payment.
§ The Gemara relates: There was once a certain guarantor for orphans whose father borrowed money and died, and the orphans were minors, and this guarantor repaid the debt to the creditor before informing the orphans that he was repaying the debt for them. The guarantor now sought reimbursement from the orphans.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain herdsman caring for the cattle of orphans from whom a creditor seized an ox as payment for a debt of the orphans’ father. The creditor said: I seized it from the herdsman while the debtor was still alive. In such a case, the action is effective even according to Rabbi Akiva, as stated earlier. And the herdsman said: He seized it after the debtor’s death. They came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling. Rav Naḥman said to the herdsman: Do you have witnesses that he seized the ox from you? He said to him: No. Rav Naḥman said to him: In that case, since the claimant can say: It is in my possession because it was purchased by me, as there is no proof that he gained possession of the ox unlawfully, he can also say: I seized it from the herdsman while the deceased was still alive.
The Gemara relates: A certain heretic who was in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s neighborhood would upset him by incessantly challenging the legitimacy of verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi took a rooster and placed it between the legs of the bed upon which he sat and looked at it. He thought: When the moment of God’s anger arrives, I will curse him and be rid of him. When the moment of God’s anger arrived, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi slept. When he woke up, he said to himself: Conclude from the fact that I nodded off that it is not proper conduct to do so, to curse people, even if they are wicked. “His mercy is over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9) is written even with regard to sinners.
The Gemara relates an additional example of Berurya’s incisive insight: A certain heretic said to Berurya: It is written: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth, open forth in song and cry, you did not travail, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, said the Lord” (Isaiah 54:1). Because she has not given birth, she should sing and rejoice?
In explaining passages from Psalms, the Gemara relates another instance of a response to the question of a heretic: A certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu, it is written: “A Psalm of David, when he fled from his son, Absalom” (Psalms 3:1), and similarly it is said: “To the chief musician, al tashḥet, a mikhtam of David when fleeing from Saul into the cave” (Psalms 57:1). Which event was first? Since the event with Saul was first, it would have been appropriate to write it first.
The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are all destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With sason you shall draw water.” Rabbi Abbahu said to him: If it had been written: For sason, it would have been as you say; now that it is written: With sason, it means that the skin of that man, you, will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it.
§ The mishna stated that the High Priest would not extend his prayer. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: There was an incident involving a certain High Priest who extended his prayer, and his fellow priests took a vote, counted, and decided to go in after him out of concern that he had died or fainted and required assistance. They began to enter and at that moment he emerged. They said to him: Why did you extend your prayer? He said to them: Why not? Does it trouble you that I prayed for you and for the Temple not to be destroyed? They said to him: Do not make a habit of doing so, as we learned: He would not extend his prayer, so as not to alarm the Jewish people, who might fear he had died.
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.
To reinforce the gravity of this prohibition, the Gemara relates: A certain individual prayed behind the synagogue and did not turn to face the synagogue.Elijah the Prophet passed by and he saw him. He appeared to him as an Arab [taya’a]. Elijah said: “This is how [kadu bar] you stand before your Master?” Elijah drew a sword and killed him.
§ The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his.
The verse that initially describes Mordecai states: “There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite” (Esther 2:5). The Gemara asks: What is it conveying in the verse by saying the names of Mordecai’s ancestors? If the verse in fact comes to trace his ancestry, it should continue tracing his lineage back all the way to Benjamin, the founder of his tribe. Rather, what is different about these names that they deserve special mention?
The Gemara asks: But does one really fulfill his obligation in this way? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥelbo say that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the Megilla must be read in its entirety in order to fulfill one’s obligation. And moreover, he said that even according to the one who said that one need not read the entire Megilla, but only from “There was a certain Jew” (Esther 2:5) and onward, the Megilla itself must nevertheless be written in its entirety. How, then, can it be suggested that one who is reading each verse as he writes it can fulfill his obligation by reading from a Megilla that is not yet written to the end?
Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: He must read all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need read only from “There was a certain Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yosei says: From “After these things” (Esther 3:1).
§ The Gemara relates: There was once a certain judge who permitted a creditor to enter the debtor’s property and collect it for his debt before lodging a claim against the debtor himself. Rav Ḥanin, son of Rav Yeiva, overruled that judge and expelled the creditor from the seized property.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain judge who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. There was a Torah scholar in his city. He said to the judge: I will bring a letter from the West, Eretz Yisrael, stating that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. The judge said to him: When you bring such a letter, I will consider it, but for now I stand by my ruling. That Torah scholar came before Rav Ḥama, and Rav Ḥama said to him: A judge who rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar has ruled, and his ruling cannot be voided.
The Gemara relates that on the day of the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a Divine Voice emerged and said: Whoever was present at the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is destined for life in the World-to-Come. There was a certain launderer who would come before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi every day. On that particular day, he did not come and was therefore not present at the funeral. When he heard this, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died, he was so full of grief that he ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: That launderer too is destined for life in the World-to-Come.
The Gemara relates another incident: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei had a vow to dissolve. He came before the Sages. They said to him: Did you vow with knowledge of this particular fact? He said to them: Yes. They asked again: Did you vow with knowledge of this other fact? He said to them: Yes. This occurred several times. When a certain launderer saw that the Sages were troubled because Rabbi Yishmael caused them difficulty in successfully dissolving his vow, he hit Rabbi Yishmael with a launderer’s tool that he had in his hand. Rabbi Yishmael said: Had I known that the launderer would hit me due to my vow I would not have vowed, and he dissolved it.
The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would learn thirteen aspects of a halakha on a certain issue, he taught Rabbi Ḥiyya seven of them. Ultimately, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fell ill and forgot all thirteen aspects. Rabbi Ḥiyya restored those seven aspects that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught him by reviewing them before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. However, six were gone and forgotten, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had not taught them to anyone. There was a certain launderer who would hear Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when he was studying those halakhot. Rabbi Ḥiyya went and learned those halakhotfrom the launderer and he came and restored them by reviewing them before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw that launderer, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You made me and Ḥiyya, as we were able to learn these halakhot that otherwise would have been forgotten. Some say that this is what he said to the launderer: You made Ḥiyya, and Ḥiyya made me.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being delivered to priests?
Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar said: There was an incident involving a certain Madonite [Madoni] who was in Jerusalem, as he had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift. He was ill and did not have time for the recipient to acquire the property by pulling. The Sages said to him: One in this situation has no remedy but to transfer them by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired a beit sela, apparently meaning land the size of a sela coin, near Jerusalem and said: This northern portion of the beit sela is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And the Madonite died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement and gave the gifts.
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: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad. Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: We learned the meaning of fear of sin from a maiden, and the significance of receiving divine reward from a widow. The meaning of fear of sin can be learned from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥanan heard a certain maiden who fell on her face in prayer, and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created the righteous and You created the wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me and consequently go to Gehenna.
§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain maidservant in Pumbedita with whom people were performing prohibited sexual acts, and her master was unable to prevent this. Abaye said: If not for the fact that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is written in the Torah: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), I would force her master, and he would write and give her a bill of manumission, enabling her to marry a Jew, which would ensure that she would cease her promiscuous behavior. Ravina said: In a case like that, Rav Yehuda concedes that it is permitted to emancipate her, due to the prohibited matter that others are violating.
And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [izi], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Naḥman say? He said to me that there was a certain maidservant whose master was on his deathbed. She came crying before him and said to him: Until when will that woman, i.e., I, continue to be subjugated? He took his hat [kumtei], threw it to her, and said to her: Go acquire this hat and thereby acquire yourself as a free woman. They came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.
The Gemara relates: The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant on the condition that they would pay with copper perutot. They did not have the money at the time, and therefore they gave a piece of silver [naskha] for her as collateral. Ultimately, the price of the maidservant increased and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. They came before Rabbi Ami for his ruling and he said to them: There are no perutot here, and there is no piece of silver here either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.
The Gemara asks: For a miracle that occurs for the multitudes we recite a blessing, but for a miracle that befalls an individual person we do not recite a blessing? Wasn’t there an incident where a certain man was walking along the right side of the Euphrates River when a lion attacked him, a miracle was performed for him, and he was rescued? He came before Rava, who said to him: Every time that you arrive there, to the site of the miracle, recite the blessing, “Blessed…Who performed a miracle for me in this place.”
The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami’s mother made this remedy for a certain man who had drunk exposed water suspected of having venom in it. She took one rose and one cup of beer and she boiled them. She gave it to him to drink, and lit the oven, and swept out the coals, and placed a brick inside it on which he could sit and not get burned. And something that appeared like a green leaf emerged, i.e., he vomited the venom.
The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain woman erected a partition on top of another partition in the property of a deceased convert. A certain man then came and plowed the ground a little. The man came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in his possession. The woman then came and cried out before Rav Naḥman. He said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession.
The Gemara asks: What is the witchcraft involved with wiping with an earthenware shard? The Gemara explains: It is as that which transpired when Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were going on a boat. A certain matron [matronita] said to them: Let me sit with you, and they did not let her sit. She said something, an incantation of witchcraft, and stopped the boat. They said something, the Holy Name, and freed it. She said to them: What will I do to you, to enable me to harm you with witchcraft,
The Sages taught a similar baraita: Once there was a certain matter needed by Torah scholars. They wanted to discuss an issue with a certain matron whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome. The Torah scholars wanted to address the government on behalf of the Jewish people, and they sought the matron’s advice. They said: Who will go? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I shall go.
The emperor said to Ketia: You have spoken well and your statement is correct; but they throw anyone who defeats the king in argument into a house full of ashes [lekamonya Ḥalila], where he would die. When they were seizing Ketia and going to take him to his death, a certain matron [matronita] said to him: Woe to the ship that goes without paying the tax. Ketia bent down over his foreskin, severed it, and said: I gave my tax; I will pass and enter. When they threw him into the house of ashes, he said: All of my property is given to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. How was this inheritance to be divided? The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva went out and taught that the verse: “And it shall be for Aaron and his sons” (Exodus 29:28), means half to Aaron and half to his sons. Here too, as Rabbi Akiva is mentioned separately, he should receive half, while his colleagues receive the other half.
This is like an incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, who was enticed by a certain noblewoman [matronita] to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said a formula of an incantation and was covered with boils and scabs so as to render himself unattractive to her. She performed an act of magic and he was healed. He fled and hid in a bathhouse that was so dangerous, due to the demons that frequented the place, that when two people entered together even during the day they would be harmed. The next day the Sages said to him: Who protected you in that dangerous place? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said to them: There were angels who appeared like two
To what is this referring? Rabbi Tzadok was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in sexual intercourse with her. He said to her: My heart is weak and I am incapable at present; is there something to eat that can strengthen me? She said to him: There is something non-kosher. He said to her: What difference is there? One who performs such an act eats such food as well. She lit the oven and placed the non-kosher food in it to roast. He climbed and sat in the oven. She said to him: What is the meaning of this? He said to her: One who performs this act falls into this, i.e., the fires of Gehenna. She said to him: If I had known that the matter was so serious for you, I would not have caused you such anguish.
The Gemara further relates: Rav Kahana would sell baskets woven from palm leaves to women. He was enticed by a certain noblewoman to engage in intercourse with her. He said to her: Let me go and adorn myself beforehand. He ascended to the roof and fell from the roof toward the ground. Elijah the prophet came and caught him. Elijah the prophet said to Rav Kahana: You have troubled me to travel four hundred parasangs [parsei] to save you. Rav Kahana said to him: What caused me to be in this situation of temptation? Was it not poverty, as I am forced to engage in a trade that leads me to come into contact with women? Elijah gave him a basket [shifa] full of dinars, to spare him from having to work as a salesman.
And they further said about Rabbi Yishmael ben Kimḥit: Once he went out and talked to a certain officer [hegmon] in the market, and a drop of saliva sprayed from the officer’s mouth onto the clothes of Rabbi Yishmael, and his brother Yosef entered and served as High Priest in his stead. And, again, their mother saw two of her sons serving as High Priests on a single day.
The Gemara relates a story that involves rising early. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, found a certain officer [parhagavna] whose responsibility was to arrest thieves. He said to the officer: How are you able to arrest them? Aren’t they likened to beasts, as it is written: “You make darkness and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep forth” (Psalms 104:20)? There are those who say that he said to him a proof from this verse: “He lies in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor when he draws him up in his net” (Psalms 10:9). Since the wicked are so devious, perhaps you apprehend the righteous and leave the wicked alone?
Rava thought to expound upon the correct punctuation and enunciation of the name of God during his public lecture before one of the Festivals. A certain old man said to him: The word forever is written in the verse: “This is My name forever [le’olam]” (Exodus 3:15) without the letter vav, such that it can be read le’alem, to conceal, meaning that the name should be concealed.
A certain old man came and taught a baraita before him: If there is a man who, upon his deathbed, says in his will: Give a shekel to my sons every week, but this is a situation where, based on their needs, they are fit for the court to give them a sela, i.e., double the amount, they give them a sela. When the dying man mentioned a shekel, he presumably meant that they should be given a sum in accordance with their actual requirements, not that specific amount. But if he said: Give them only a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel and no more.
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: If so, then this is in conflict with that which we learned in a baraita: Go and calculate how many perutot there are in two sela: More than two thousand. Now there are not even two thousand, and you call them: More than two thousand? Rather, the peruta is certainly worth less than one-eighth of the Italian issar. A certain old man said to them: I teach thisbaraita as saying: Close to two thousand. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, according to the calculation of one-eighth of an issar, the number of perutot in two selais 1,536, which is nowhere near two thousand. The Gemara answers: Since it passes half of the second thousand it is called: Close to two thousand.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Naḥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naḥman did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Naḥman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.
§ The Sages taught: If a woman gave her child to a wet nurse during the waiting period, or weaned him, or the child died, she is permitted to marry immediately. It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, thought to act in accordance with this baraita. However, a certain old woman said to them: There was an incident in which I was involved with regard to this issue and Rav Naḥman prohibited it for me.
Rav Ḥisda said: This statement that is attributed to Rav was not stated explicitly. Rather, it was inferred from another statement of his, as it is related: There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen.
When Rav Ḥaviva bar Surmakei ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this difficulty before a certain one of the Sages. That Sage said to him: One who does not know how to interpret verses is so arrogant that he raises an objection to the opinion of the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Indeed, Rabba bar Ulla misunderstood the basis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation. What is the meaning of the phrase: The youngest of the flock? It means the youngest of the brothers, a reference to Persia, as Rav Yosef taught: Tiras, the youngest of Japheth’s sons, that is Persia.
§ Concerning the lack of truth, Rava says: Initially I would say that there is no truth anywhere in the world. There was a certain one of the Sages, and Rav Tavut is his name, and some say Rav Tavyomei is his name, who was so honest that if they were to give him the entire world, he would not deviate from the truth in his statement. He said to me: One time I happened to come to a certain place, and Truth is its name, and its residents would not deviate from the truth in their statements, and no person from there would die prematurely. I married a woman from among them, and I had two sons from her.
Likewise, the Gemara relates: A certain one of the Sages sat before Rav Kahana, and he sat and said the verse: “God will likewise break you forever; He will take you up and pluck you from the tent, and uproot you from the land of the living, Selah” (Psalms 52:7). Rav Kahana said to him: Employ a euphemism and formulate it in the third person rather than the second person, so that it will not sound as though you are cursing your teacher.
The people of Sodom would say: Anyone who has one ox shall herd the city’s oxen for one day. Anyone who does not have any oxen shall herd the city’s oxen for two days. The Gemara relates: They gave oxen to a certain orphan, son of a widow, to herd. He went and took them and killed them. The orphan said to the people of Sodom:
Apropos dead residue in the ground, Reish Lakish said: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all those who died in the Flood were deposited there [ninaru lesham]. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why is Babylonia called Metzula? It is because all those who died in the Flood sank there [nitztalelu lesham]. The Gemara asks: We said that some say that if one eats dirt from Babylonia, it is as if he eats abominations and creeping creatures. However, certainly their bodies have putrefied and decomposed, and therefore they are no longer prohibited. Rather, since soil is harmful, the Sages issued a decree not to eat it. The decree was not issued due to the prohibition of eating creeping creatures; rather, it was issued because a certain person ate soil for medicinal purposes and also ate cress. The cress took root in the soil that was inside him and began to grow. And the cress punctured his heart and he died.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who judges another favorably is himself judged favorably. And there was an incident involving a certain person who descended from the Upper Galilee and was hired to work for a certain homeowner in the South for three years. On the eve of the Day of Atonement, he said to the homeowner: Give me my wages, and I will go and feed my wife and children. The homeowner said to him: I have no money. He said to him: In that case, give me my wages in the form of produce. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of land. The homeowner said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me my wages in the form of animals. He said to him: I have none. The worker said to him: Give me cushions and blankets. He said to him: I have none. The worker slung his tools over his shoulder behind him and went to his home in anguish.
Rav Yehuda said: In the case of a deceased person who has no comforters, i.e., he has nobody to mourn for him, ten people should go and sit in his place and accept condolences. The Gemara relates the story of a certain person who died in Rav Yehuda’s neighborhood and who did not have any comforters, i.e., mourners;
Having mentioned that the people of Judea are precise in their speech, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this? The Gemara answers with an example: As in the case of a certain person from Judea who said to those within earshot: I have a cloak to sell. They said to him: What color is your cloak? He said to them: Like beets on the ground, providing an exceedingly precise description of the exact shade of the cloak, the green tint of beet greens when they first sprout.
The Gemara returns to the people of the Galilee, who are not precise in their speech. What is the meaning of this? The Gemara cites examples: As it was taught in a baraitathat there was a certain person from the Galilee who would walk and say to people: Who has amar? Who has amar? They said to him: Foolish Galilean, what do you mean? Galileans did not pronounce the guttural letters properly, so it was unclear whether he sought a donkey [Ḥamor] to ride, or wine [Ḥamar] to drink, wool [amar] to wear, or a lamb [imar] to slaughter. This is an example of the lack of precision in the Galileans’ speech.
A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). For what reason is He jealous and does He exact vengeance from the idol’s worshippers, but He is not jealous of the idol itself and does not destroy it?
And Rava raises another objection to the explanation that Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion specifically in a case where the robber took an oath. There was an incident involving a certain pious man who purchased an item from one of two people, and he did not know from which of them he purchased the item, and he came before Rabbi Tarfon for a ruling. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Place the money of your purchase between them and withdraw. He then came before Rabbi Akiva, who said to him: You have no remedy until you pay each and every one, i.e., both of them. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Akiva stated his ruling specifically where the purchaser took a false oath, does a pious man take a false oath? It seems from this incident that Rabbi Akiva rules he must pay all potential owners regardless of whether or not he took a false oath.
And if you would say that perhaps he took a false oath and later became a pious man, but isn’t there a tradition that anywhere that we say: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the pious man is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, were both pious men from the beginning.
And we maintain that anywhere that it says: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the man in question is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages lived many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. If this is the case, then even in later generations there were Sages without a flaw.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who redeemed a young Jewish woman from captivity. When they arrived at the inn he had her lie beneath his feet. The next day, he descended, and immersed in a ritual bath to purify himself before Torah study and prayer, and taught his students. This conduct could arouse suspicion that the pious man kept the maiden for himself, as immersion in the morning is customary for men who have experienced a seminal emission by engaging in sexual relations.
§ The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his.
The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. Those caring for the man asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a she-goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it every morning.
It is related that a certain poor person who was going door to door requesting charity came before Rav Pappa, the local charity collector, but Rav Pappa did not attend to him. Rav Sama, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Rav Pappa: If the Master does not attend to him, nobody else will attend to him either; should he be left to die of hunger? Rav Pappa said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a poor person was going door to door asking for charity, one is not required to attend to him? Rav Sama said to him: That baraita means to say that one is not required to attend to him and give him a large gift, since he is already collecting money as he goes door to door, but one does attend to him and give him a small gift.
§ With respect to a pregnant woman who smells food, it is told: A certain pregnant woman smelled a food and craved it. Those involved came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to ask how to proceed. He said to those who were inquiring: Go and whisper to her that today is Yom Kippur. They whispered to her, and this whispering helped; she stopped craving the food. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read this verse about the baby she was carrying: “Before I formed you in the belly I knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you” (Jeremiah 1:5), and indeed, the baby who came out of that woman was Rabbi Yoḥanan.
The Gemara relates another story: A certain pregnant woman smelled food and had a craving to eat it on Yom Kippur. Those involved came before Rabbi Ḥanina to ask how to proceed. He said to them: Whisper to her that today is Yom Kippur. They whispered to her, but she did not accept the whisper and continued to crave the food. Rabbi Ḥanina read this verse about the baby:
Rav Naḥman said that a Sage taught in the Tosefta: And the Rabbis say that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in the Chamber of the Woodshed. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, have learned in a mishna: There was an incident involving a certain priest who was occupied with various matters, and he saw a floor tile in the woodshed that was different from the others. One of the marble floor tiles was higher than the rest, suggesting it had been lifted out and replaced. He came and informed his friend of the uneven tile, but was unable to finish his report and provide the exact location of the tile before his soul departed from his body. And consequently they knew definitively that the Ark was buried there, but its location was meant to be kept secret.
Rav Ḥana bar Rav Ketina raised an objection from the aforementioned mishna: There was an incident involving a certain priest who was occupied and discovered the place where the Ark was hidden, and he subsequently died before he could reveal its location. Since he was prevented from seeing the Ark, it was evidently prohibited to see the sacred objects even after the Temple was built. Rav Naḥman said to him: This is not difficult, as you are speaking of when she was divorced. Since the Jewish people were exiled after the destruction of the First Temple, they are compared to a woman divorced from her husband, and when a woman is divorced she returns to her original beloved but reserved state. She is once again modest and does not reveal herself. Likewise, the Divine Presence will remain hidden until the glory of the First Temple is restored.
The Gemara relates another incident related to this halakha: A certain priest married a convert, who had converted when she was less than three years and one day old. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: What is this? Why are you violating the halakha? He said to him: It is permitted for me to marry her, as Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. He said to him: Go remove her, i.e., divorce her. And if not, I will remove Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi from your ear [me’unekh] for you. In other words, I will take the necessary action to ensure that you obey and divorce her, so that you can no longer follow Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi’s opinion.
Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok said: An incident occurred with regard to a certain priest’s daughter who committed adultery, and they wrapped her in bundles of branches and burned her, contrary to the process described in the mishna. The Sages said to him: That court did not act properly; they did so because the court at that time was not proficient in halakha.
The Gemara relates another incident with regard to a similar subject: A certain Roman said to a certain woman: Will you marry me? She said to him: No. In order to convince her, he went and brought pomegranates and peeled them and ate them in front of her and did not give her any of them. The aroma of the pomegranates caused her mouth to water, so she swallowed all of the saliva that caused her anguish, but he did not give her any until she became ill and bloated. Ultimately, he said to her: If I cure you, will you marry me? She said to him: Yes. He went and brought pomegranates, peeled them and ate them in front of her. He said to her: All of the saliva that causes you anguish, spit it out, spit it out. She did this until something like a green leaf came out of her, and then she was cured.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.
The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain Roman who saw a certain man fall from the roof to the ground, and his stomach ruptured and his intestines emerged. The Roman brought the man’s son and slaughtered him before his father’s eyes
§ The mishna taught that on the Ninth of Av the city of Jerusalem was plowed. It is taught in a baraita: When the wicked Turnus Rufus plowed the Sanctuary, a decree was issued against Rabban Gamliel for execution. A certain Roman officer came and stood in the study hall and said surreptitiously: The man with the nose is wanted; the man with the nose is wanted. This was a hint that Rabban Gamliel, who stood out in his generation like a nose protruding from a face, was sought by the government. Rabban Gamliel heard and went into hiding.
While they were sitting, a certain royal officer [peristaka] came and said to bar Sheshakh: Rise, as the king requires you to appear before him. As he was going out, he said to Rava: May any eye that wishes to see evil upon you burst, as it is clear that you were correct. Rava said to him: Amen. And then bar Sheshakh’s eye burst.
Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. And Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it, before he changes his mind and takes out his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.
It was stated in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in the alleyway before Shabbat. The mishna then continues with a discussion about how and whether the alleyway may be used on Shabbat. The Gemara first poses a question: A Sadducee; who mentioned his name? The mishna had thus far spoken only of a gentile, so why does Rabban Gamliel invoke an incident involving a Sadducee?
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete. It is missing an important element, and this is what it is teaching: The legal status of a Sadducee is like that of a gentile, and Rabban Gamliel says: The legal status of a Sadducee is not like that of a gentile. And Rabban Gamliel further said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in the alleyway before Shabbat, and Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it before he changes his mind and takes out his utensils, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.
A certain Sage for whom it was his first day in that study hall raised an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and one may not move it. How, then, does he act if he insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?
The Gemara offers another example: Rafram once eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, Rabbi Zeira once eulogized a certain Sage inside a synagogue. He said: Whether due to my honor, or whether due to the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy.
The Gemara relates another incident: The was a certain sharecropper who betrothed a woman with a handful [bemoza] of onions [deshamkhei] taken from the field where he worked. He came before Rava to ask about the status of the woman. Rava said to him: Who relinquished these onions to you? Since the owner did not allow you to take them, they are stolen property, and the woman is not betrothed. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to a handful, but if he took a bundle of onions and betrothed a woman with them, the sharecropper can say to the owner: I took a bundle, you take a bundle; one bundle for another bundle. Since in any case they divide the crop between them, it is not considered theft.
The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda had a certain sharecropper who would weigh the field’s produce and give Rav Ḥisda his portion, and weigh the produce and take his own portion. Rav Ḥisda dismissed him, and read the following verse about him: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous” (Proverbs 13:22).
There was a certain slaughterer about whom it was discovered that a tereifa,an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months, emerged from his possession. In other words, he sold tereifa meat without informing the customers of its status. Rav Naḥman disqualified him from bearing witness and removed him from his position as a slaughterer. The slaughterer subsequently went and grew his fingernails and his hair out of remorse over his actions. Rav Naḥman thought to deem him fit again for bearing witness, as he clearly repented, and once someone repents for his sin, his status as a valid witness is restored.
There was a certain slaughterer who did not present his knife before Rava bar Ḥinnana. Rava bar Ḥinnana ostracized him, and removed him from his position, and proclaimed about meat from an animal that he slaughtered that it is tereifa. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi happened before Rava bar Ḥinnana in his place of residence. Rava bar Ḥinnana said to them: Let the Sages examine the matter of the slaughterer, as small children are dependent upon him.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who belonged to two partners. One of them arose and emancipated his half of the slave. The other master said: Now the rabbis of the local court will hear that my slave is half emancipated and they will cause me to lose him, i.e., they will force me to release him, as is stated in the mishna (41b) that the court forces a master to release his slave who has been half emancipated. He went and transferred ownership of the slave to his minor son, who could not be forced by the court to emancipate him, so that the slave would remain in his possession.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who fled from his master from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. His master followed him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to the master: We will write a promissory note for his value for you, and you should write a bill of manumission for him. And if you do not do this, I will remove him from you entirely, since he does not have to return to outside of Eretz Yisrael, based on the statement of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain son of a demon that was in Rav Pappa’s house as a servant. It went to bring water from the river, and it delayed in returning. When it came, the members of Rav Pappa’s household said to it: Why did you delay? It said to them: I waited until the foul waters passed. In the meantime,
In matters of Torah, what is the case with regard to which the verse said that one should respond to a fool’s folly? As in the case where Rabban Gamliel was sitting and he interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, in the World-to-Come, a woman will give birth every day, as it says: “The woman with child and her that gives birth together” (Jeremiah 31:7), explaining that birth will occur on the same day as conception. A certain student scoffed at him and said: That cannot be, as it has already been stated: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rabban Gamliel said to him: Come and I will show you an example of this in this world. He took him outside and showed him a chicken that lays eggs every day.
And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, in the World-to-Come, trees will produce fruits every day, as it is stated: “And it shall bring forth branches and bear fruit” (Ezekiel 17:23); just as a branch grows every day, so too, fruit will be produced every day. A certain student scoffed at him and said: Isn’t it written: There is nothing new under the sun? He said to him: Come and I will show you an example of this in this world. He went outside and showed him a caper bush, part of which is edible during each season of the year.
And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, the World-to-Come, Eretz Yisrael will produce cakes and fine wool garments that will grow in the ground, as it is stated: “Let abundant grain be in the land.” A certain student scoffed at him and said: There is nothing new under the sun. He said to him: Come and I will show you an example in this world. He went outside and showed him truffles and mushrooms, which emerge from the earth over the course of a single night and are shaped like a loaf of bread. And with regard to wool garments, he showed him the covering of a heart of palm, a young palm branch, which is wrapped in a thin net-like covering.
And the Rabbis say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. The Sages said: She can say: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform Ḥalitza with her.
The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.
The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. As this happened in that incident where there was a certain teacher of children who was negligent in his supervision of the children, and Rav Aḥa vowed on the basis of the consent of the public that he would no longer be allowed to teach children. And nevertheless Ravina restored him to his position, because no other teacher was found who was as accurate as he. Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.
Ameimar says: The halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says a vow that was taken in public has the option of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public it has no option of nullification. The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva it has the option of nullification. As in the incident involving a certain teacher of children,upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow to cease teaching based on the consent of the public, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much; and Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.
The significance of receiving divine reward can be learned from a widow, as there was a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, and despite this every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to her: My daughter, is there not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward for all the steps I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall?
When Benayahu took Ashmedai and came to Jerusalem he reached a palm tree and Ashmedai rubbed against it and knocked it down. He reached a house and knocked it down. He reached a small shack [kuva] belonging to a certain widow. This widow emerged,
The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain woman erected a partition on top of another partition in the property of a deceased convert. A certain man then came and plowed the ground a little. The man came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in his possession. The woman then came and cried out before Rav Naḥman. He said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession.
The Gemara cites another example of the lack of linguistic precision of the Galileans: There was a certain woman who wanted to say to her friend: My neighbor, come and I will feed you milk [ta’i de’okhlikh Ḥelba]; however, due to the imprecise articulation of her words, she said to her: My neighbor, may a lioness eat you [tokhlikh lavya].
The Gemara cites another example of the ignorance and incivility of the Galileans: There was a certain woman who came before a judge intending to say: Master, sir [Mari kiri, spelled with a kuf], I had a board, and they stole it from me [tavla havet li ugenavuha mimeni]. But instead she said to him: Master, servant [Mari kiri, spelled with a kaf], I had a beam and they stole you from me [tafla havet li ugenavukh min]. And it was so large, that when they would hang you upon it, your feet would not reach the ground.
What is the incident with a young girl? One time I was walking along the path, and the path passed through a field, and I was walking on it. A certain young girl said to me: My Rabbi, isn’t this a field? One should not walk through a field, so as not to damage the crops growing there. I said to her: Isn’t it a well-trodden path in the field, across which one is permitted to walk? She said to me: Robbers like you have trodden it. In other words, it previously had been prohibited to walk through this field, and it is only due to people such as you, who paid no attention to the prohibition, that a path has been cut across it. Thus, the young girl defeated Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya in a debate.
§ 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.
Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him.
The Gemara rejects this: No, he had no time due to the burden of preparing for Shabbat. The Gemara adds: A Galilean taught, while standing above Rav Ḥisda: Blessed is the all-Merciful One, Who gave the threefold Torah: Torah, Prophets, and Writings, to the three-fold nation: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, by means of a third-born: Moses, who followed Aaron and Miriam in birth order, on the third day of the separation of men and women, in the third month: Sivan. On whose opinion is this homily based? It is based on the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the Torah was given on the third day of separation and not on the fourth day.
The Gemara answers: The mishna discusses a case of a king and queen and similar cases of those for whom food is supplied by slaves. They are content with whatever food is presented to them, since all their food is of good quality. Such people have the intent to be registered with whichever animal their slaves select to slaughter first, and only with that animal.
And similarly, it was taught in a baraita: One may not register for two Paschal offerings at once. And there was an incident involving a king and queen who said to their slaves: Go and slaughter the Paschal offering on our behalf. And they went out and slaughtered two Paschal offerings on their behalf. They came and asked the king which one he wished to eat. He said to them: Go and ask the queen. They came and asked the queen. She said to them: Go and ask Rabban Gamliel to rule which one should be used.
They came and asked Rabban Gamliel. He said to them: A king and queen, who are easily accepting of whichever foods their slaves choose to present to them, should eat from the first one that was slaughtered, since it is presumed they wished to be registered for any animal the slaves selected. But we, the general populace, who have limited supplies of food and so are particular about what food is served to us, would not eat from the first or from the second, since it is not permitted to be registered for two Paschal lambs at once.
Ravin bar Rav Adda says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There was an incident involving a maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who immersed herself, and she ascended from her immersion and a bone was found interposed between her teeth, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required her to perform another immersion. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one may not have a foreign object even inside one’s mouth.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintain with regard to the matter of immersion that the tongue is considered concealed? But doesn’t Ravin say that Rav Adda says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There was an incident involving a maidservant of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who immersed herself, and she ascended from her immersion and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required her to perform another immersion? This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one may not have a foreign object even inside one’s mouth during immersion. If so, the tongue should require immersion as well.
The Sages taught: There was a related incident, involving a particular pious man who was praying while traveling along his path when an officer [hegmon] came and greeted him. The pious man did not pause from his prayer and did not respond with a greeting. The officer waited for him until he finished his prayer. After he finished his prayer, the officer said to him: You good for nothing. You endangered yourself; I could have killed you. Isn’t it written in your Torah: “Take utmost care and guard yourself diligently” (Deuteronomy 4:9)? And it is also written: “Take therefore good heed unto yourselves” (Deuteronomy 4:15)? Why did you ignore the danger to your life? When I greeted you, why did you not respond with a greeting? Were I to sever your head with a sword, who would hold me accountable for your spilled blood?
The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.
The Gemara challenges this: And is it so that the dead do not know of the pain of others? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a pious man who gave a poor man a dinar on the eve of Rosh HaShana during drought years, and his wife mocked him for giving so large a sum at so difficult a time? And in order to escape her incessant mockery, he went and slept in the cemetery. That night in his dream (Ritva, HaKotev, Maharsha), he heard two spirits conversing with each other. One said to the other: My friend, let us roam the world and hear from behind the heavenly curtain [pargod], which separates the Divine Presence from the world, what calamity will befall the world. The other spirit said to her: I cannot go with you, as I am buried in a mat of reeds, but you go, and tell me what you hear. She went, and roamed, and came back. The other spirit said: My friend, what did you hear from behind the heavenly curtain? She replied: I heard that anyone who sows during the first rainy season of this year, hail will fall and strike his crops. Hearing this, the pious man went and sowed his seeds during the second rainy season. Ultimately, the crops of the entire world were stricken by hail and his crops were not stricken.
We learned in the mishna that one may not wait for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to hire workers or bring produce from outside of the boundary immediately after Shabbat. The Sages taught: There was an incident with a pious man in which a breach was made in the fence around his field, and when he saw it he decided to fence it in. And then he remembered that it was Shabbat. And that pious man refrained from fixing the fence forever because he had thought about fixing it on Shabbat. And a miracle was done for him, and a caper bush grew in the breach, thereby closing it up. And from it and its produce he then received his livelihood and the livelihood of the members of his household.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: However, if that is so, if one humiliated a poor person of noble descent, where there is dishonor for all members of the family, is the halakhaalso that he is required to give payment for humiliation to all members of the family? Rav Ashi said to him that there is a distinction between one’s wife and one’s relatives. There, where a relative was humiliated, it is not as if they themselves had suffered the humiliation. Here, since one’s wife is considered his own self, it is as if he himself were humiliated.
Concerning this issue, the Sages taught: “Sufficient for his deficiency”; this teaches that you are commanded with respect to the pauper to support him, but you are not commanded with respect to him to make him wealthy, as the obligation encompasses only that which he lacks, as indicated by the word deficient. However, the verse also states: “Which is deficient for him”; this includes even a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him for the sake of his stature, if necessary. For someone accustomed to these advantages, their absences constitute a true deficiency, not an extravagant indulgence. The Gemara relates: They said about Hillel the Elder that he obtained for a poor person of noble descent a horse upon which to ride and a servant to run in front of him. One time he did not find a servant to run in front of him, and Hillel himself ran in front of him for three mil, to fulfill the dictate “which is deficient for him.”
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village.
Rava raised an objection from a mishna (29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret; or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, there is a fine paid to their fathers if they are raped. And if you say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her payment of the fine that she will go and consume in her gentile state?
MISHNA:These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27), or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed, or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were liberated when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin.
GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Is it these young women with flawed lineage listed in the mishna, for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped, while for young women with unflawed lineage, no, there is no fine? The Gemara explains that this is what the tannais saying: These are the young women with flawed lineage for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped. This is not a comprehensive list; rather, the tanna enumerates those young women for whom a fine is paid despite their flawed lineage: One who has relations with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman, or with a Samaritan woman.
The Gemara returns to the topic of fasting for rain. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina decreed a fast but rain did not come. They said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi decree a fast and rain came? He said to them: This is I; this is a son of a Levite, i.e., we are two different people of unequal stature. They said to him: Let us come and focus our minds. Perhaps the hearts of the members of the community will break and rain will come. They prayed for mercy, but rain did not come.
Know that this is so, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident where a student of Rabbi Meir followed him into the bathhouse on Shabbat and sought to rinse the floor in order to clean it. And Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not rinse the floor on Shabbat. The student asked if it was permitted to smear the floor with oil. He said to him: One may not smear the floor with oil. Apparently, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different. Here too, in the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, preventing one from violating a prohibition is different and permitted.
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the mishna’s lenient ruling with regard to smearing oil on a corpse: But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: There was an incident with a student of Rabbi Meir who followed him into the bathhouse on Shabbat. The student wanted to rinse the ground. Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not rinse on Shabbat. The student wanted to smear the ground with oil. Rabbi Meir said to him: One may not smear on Shabbat. This indicates that it is prohibited to rinse or smear anything that may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: The ground in one place can be confused with the ground in another place, and the Sages therefore prohibited these activities even on a tiled floor, such as that of a bathhouse, due to a concern that one may come to do so on a dirt floor and smooth it out. However, a corpse cannot be confused with the ground, and it is therefore permitted to rinse a corpse and smear it with oil.
And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil, which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;
Having discussed the clever speech of various Sages, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said as follows: In all my days, no person defeated me in a verbal encounter except for a woman, a young boy, and a young girl. What is the encounter in which a woman got the better of me? One time I was staying at a certain inn and the hostess prepared me beans. On the first day I ate them and left nothing over, although proper etiquette dictates that one should leave over something on his plate. On the second day I again ate and left nothing over. On the third day she over-salted them so that they were inedible. As soon as I tasted them, I withdrew my hands from them.
What is the incident with a young girl? One time I was walking along the path, and the path passed through a field, and I was walking on it. A certain young girl said to me: My Rabbi, isn’t this a field? One should not walk through a field, so as not to damage the crops growing there. I said to her: Isn’t it a well-trodden path in the field, across which one is permitted to walk? She said to me: Robbers like you have trodden it. In other words, it previously had been prohibited to walk through this field, and it is only due to people such as you, who paid no attention to the prohibition, that a path has been cut across it. Thus, the young girl defeated Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya in a debate.
And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: One goes to theaters [tartiyyaot] and circuses [karkiyyaot] to supervise matters affecting the multitudes on Shabbat, because the fate of the Jewish people or of individual Jews is often decided there and one’s presence could prevent calamity. And the Sage of the school of Menashya taught: One makes matches [meshadkhin] among the families concerned for a young girl to be betrothed on Shabbat, and similarly one may make arrangements for a young boy to teach him Torah and to teach him a craft. Apparently, calculations for a mitzva may be reckoned on Shabbat, including calculations for a wedding. Therefore, this cannot be the reason for the prohibition against marrying at the conclusion of Shabbat.
The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a youth who was reading the book of Ezekiel in the house of his teacher, and he was able to comprehend the electrum, and fire came out of the electrum and burned him. And they sought to suppress the book of Ezekiel due to the danger it posed. Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya said to them: If this youth happened to be wise, are all people wise enough to understand this book?
§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.
And there are those who say that the child who died was not a small child, but a youth, and this is what the disseminator said to him: “Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, nor shall He have compassion on their orphans and widows, for everyone is a flatterer and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks obscenity. For all this His anger is not turned away, and His hand is still outstretched” (Isaiah 9:16). What is the meaning of the phrase “And His hand is still outstretched”? Rav Ḥanan bar Rav said: Everyone knows why a bride enters the wedding canopy. It is the step before consummation of the marriage. However, one should not speak about it unnecessarily, as anyone who profanes his mouth and issues a matter of profanity from his mouth, even if a positive decree of seventy years was sealed for him, nevertheless, it is transformed for him into an evil decree.
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
Abdon, the shortened form of the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s student and attendant, Abba Yudan, said to him: Who is that individual stepping over the heads of a sacred people, for it appeared to him as an act of disrespect to those sitting that Rabbi Yishmael stepped over their heads. He said to him: I am Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who came to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Abdon said to him: But are you fit to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for it seems that you are showing disrespect to others in order to accomplish it?
In the meantime, a yevama came before Rabbi, and she was a minor close to the age of maturity who had performed Ḥalitza, but it was not clear whether she had already reached the age of maturity necessary to validate her Ḥalitza. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Abdon: Go and check to see if she has already reached maturity. After Abdon left, Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My father, Rabbi Yosei, said as follows: “Man” is written in the Torah portion of Ḥalitza, but the woman may be either an adult woman or a female minor.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Abdon: Come back. You do not need to check, as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already ruled that a minor can perform Ḥalitza, and therefore no further examination is required. Abdon was stepping and coming over the heads of the others in order to return to his place. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: One upon whom a holy people depends may step over the heads of a holy people. But one upon whom a holy people does not depend, as there is no longer a need for Abdon to examine the woman, how can he step over the heads of a holy people?
The Gemara relates: The gentile scholar, Ablat, found Shmuel lying in the sun. Ablat said to Shmuel: Wise man of the Jews, a matter that is evil, can it become good? Are there any circumstances in which the heat of the sun, which is harmful, can be beneficial? Shmuel said to him: It happens on a day of bloodletting, for which the heat of the sun is beneficial.
And from that which transpired to Shmuel, one can also conclude that there is no constellation for the Jewish people. The Gemara relates that Shmuel and the gentile sage Ablet were sitting, and they saw these people were going to the lake. Ablet said to Shmuel: This person will go and he will not return, because a snake will bite him and he will die. Shmuel said to him: If he is a Jew, he will go and come back. As they were sitting for a while, the person they discussed went away and then returned.
Ablet stood up, threw down the person’s burden, and inside he found a snake cut and cast in two pieces. Shmuel said to him: What did you do to merit being saved from death? The person said to him: Every day we all take bread together and eat from the bread. Today, there was one of us who did not have bread, and when it came time to gather the bread, he was embarrassed because he did not have any to give. I said to the others: I will go and take the bread. When I came to the person who did not have bread, I rendered myself as one who was taking from him so that he would not be embarrassed. Shmuel said to him: You performed a mitzva. Shmuel went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not only mean that it will save a person from an unusual death but even from death itself.
The Gemara relates another incident: Shmuel and Ablet, a gentile scholar, were sitting together, and others brought cooked wine before them. Ablet withdrew his hand to avoid rendering the wine prohibited to Shmuel. Seeing this, Shmuel said to Ablet that the Sages said: Cooked wine is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation, and therefore you need not withdraw your hand on my account.
The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.
The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat, which was the ruling in Shmuel’s version of the mishna. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come to Pumbedita and he did not enter Rav Yehuda’s lecture. Rav Yehuda sent for Adda, his attendant, and said to him: Go drag him to the lecture. He went and dragged him forcibly to the lecture (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and found Rav Yehuda teaching that one may not reset a break on Shabbat. He said to him: This is what Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said that Shmuel said: The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said to him: Ḥana is ours, a Babylonian scholar, and Shmuel is ours, and nevertheless, I did not yet hear this halakha; did I not rightfully drag you to the lecture?
§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal.
Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But with regard to establishing the repayment of the loan upon produce valued at the market rate, the buyer does stand to gain from the agreement, as, if he would have to go to acquire produce elsewhere, he would have to give a dinar to a broker, and therefore he gains a dinar from the early payment. Rava said to him: The case is one where the buyer also gives the seller the broker’s fee. Rav Ashi said: There is generally no need to add this fee, as a person’s dinars serve as a broker for him. One who has ready cash has no need for the services of a broker.
When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there.
And that which Adda bar Avimi taught with regard to the difference in size between the two courtyards is not universally accepted, as according to Rabbi Zeira it is sufficient if one courtyard is four handbreadths larger than the other. Rather, it is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires two upright boards of wall in a breached courtyard. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that a side post must be at least three handbreadths wide. Consequently, the two upright boards together must be at least six handbreadths, which is why the minimum difference between the smaller and the larger courtyards is a cubit.
The Gemara relates: Adda bar Ḥavu had a ben pekua that was attacked by a bear and was about to die. He came before Rav Ashi to inquire what to do. Rav Ashi said to him: Go and slaughter it before it dies so that you can eat it, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna that if a ben pekua stood upon the ground it requires slaughter. Adda bar Ḥavu said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Ze’eiri say that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri that a ben pekua is permitted without slaughter even if it stood upon the ground, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon Shezuri would permit without slaughter the offspring of a ben pekuaand the offspring of its offspring, and so on to the end of all future generations? And even Rabbi Yoḥanan, who disagreed, said his dissenting opinion only with regard to its offspring, but with regard to a ben pekuaitself, he did not disagree that it is permitted.
The Gemara asks: But if so, thatbaraita cited earlier, which presents these halakhot differently, is difficult. The Gemara answers: This does not pose a problem, as thatbaraitawas taught by Adda bar Ukhmei, who would often confuse the opinions in the text and teach an inaccurate version of the dispute; therefore, his version is unreliable.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that young boys may go out on Shabbat with knots. The Gemara asks: What are these knots? Adda Mari said that Rav Naḥman bar Barukh said that Rav Ashi bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: They are garlands of the madder plant that are tied for their medicinal qualities.
And from where do we derive that we may shackle his hands and feet, chain him, and apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [lishroshi], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment” (Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word “lishroshi,” translated here as banishment? Adda Mari said that Neḥemya bar Baruch said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: This is pressure. Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: What is pressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav that this term refers to the following series of actions: They ostracize him immediately, and then once again after thirty days, and if he still does not repent, they excommunicate him after sixty days.
The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Ḥiyya reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Ḥiyya was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav reached only the shoulder of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rav was the tallest person in his generation. And Rav Yehuda reached only the shoulder of Rav, and Rav Yehuda was the tallest person in his generation. And Adda the attendant [dayyala] reached only the shoulder of Rav Yehuda,
and when the governor [parashtevina] of Pumbedita would stand next to Adda the attendant, he would reach only half of his height. And when everyone else in the world would stand next to the governor of Pumbedita, they would reach only his loins [Ḥartzeih].
Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me that a fish that has sat for some time and is close to spoiling is at its best. And Rav also said: Adda the fisherman told me: With regard to a fish, broil it with its brother, i.e., with salt, which, like fish, also comes from the sea; place it in its father, i.e., in water; and eat it with its son, i.e., with fish brine which comes from it; and drink after it its father, i.e., water.
And in addition Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, let the body carry them and let not the bed carry them, i.e., it is advisable to go for a walk after eating them, rather than immediately going to sleep. And Rav said: Adda the fisherman told me: After eating fish, cress, and milk, it is better to drink water and not beer, and if he has no water, he should drink beer and not wine, in order to avoid harming his body.
With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara asks: But is there a case like this? Is it possible for wheat to fall from the clouds? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in an incident involving Adi the Arab [taya’a], about whom it is related that it rained down on him wheat of a height of one handbreadth spread over an area of three parasangs.
Let us say that Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yirmeya disagree over the dispute between Admon and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 109b): With regard to one who owns a field and has the rights to a path that passes through land belonging to another, and he traveled to a country overseas, and when he returned the path to his field was lost, i.e., he forgot where the path was located, Admon says: He may go only on the shortest path to his field, as although it is not known where the path is, he definitely did have a path, and therefore at the very least he has a right to the shortest path. The Rabbis say: He must either purchase for himself a new path for whatever price is asked, even if it is one hundred dinars, or he will have to fly through the air to reach his field, i.e., as long as he cannot prove where the original path was, he has no rights to any other path.
And we discussed the mishna and thereby established the parameters of the dispute as follows: It is difficult for the Rabbis because Admon is saying well, i.e., the logic of his opinion would seem to be compelling. And in defense of the Rabbis’ opinion, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where his field was surrounded by four individuals who owned the land on each of its four sides. Therefore, he cannot demand a path from any one of the surrounding owners, since each one can deflect his claim by suggesting that the path might have passed through one of the other owners’ land.
When they disagree, it is in a case in which there is only one current owner of all four pieces of land, who came to own his land on the basis of purchase from four previous owners. Admon holds that the owner of the field can say to the current owner of the surrounding land: Whichever way you construe the case, my path to my field is somewhere with you in the surrounding land. And the Rabbis hold that the owner of the surrounding land can deflect this claim because he can say to him: If you do not press your claim and are silent, then be silent, and I will sell you a path at a reasonable price. But if not, and you insist on pressing your claim, then I will return the bills of purchase of the land to their previous owners, and then you will not be able to successfully engage in a legal dispute with them, as each one could claim that the path went through one of the other pieces of land not owned by them.
GEMARA: The mishna states that there were two judges who issued decrees [gezeirot] in Jerusalem. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There were three judges who adjudicated cases of theft [gezeilot] in Jerusalem: Admon ben Gaddai, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. The fact that the baraita mentions three judges is difficult, as the mishna includes only two; and the fact that the judges are described in the mishna as those who issue decrees is also difficult as they are described in the baraita as judges who adjudicate cases of theft.
The Gemara relates: Antoninus would attend to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and similarly the Persian king Adrakan would attend to Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The bundle is separated. When Adrakan died, Rav likewise said:
The Gemara challenges: But the value of the coin has been enhanced for the purpose of melting it down into a bar of metal. Since this coin now contains a larger quantity of metal, if it were to be melted it would be worth more than an earlier coin of the same type, so it should be considered interest. Rather, in this case one must act in accordance with how Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted when they performed an action with the dinars of Agardamis the Arab merchant [tayya’a]: They considered up to ten old coins to be the equivalent of eight new coins. Since ten old coins were equivalent in value to eight new coins, they paid eight new coins in exchange for ten old ones.
And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that matters of Torah provide refuge? It means protection, but not for an unintentional murderer from the blood redeemer; rather, it means protection from the Angel of Death. This is as it was in this incident where Rav Ḥisda was sitting and studying in the study hall of Rav and the agent of the Angel of Death was unable to approach him and take his life because his mouth was not silent from his study for even a moment. The agent ascended and sat on the cedar tree of the study hall of Rav. The cedar tree broke and Rav Ḥisda was momentarily silent, startled by the sudden noise, and the agent of the Angel of Death overcame him. Apparently, matters of Torah provide protection from the Angel of Death only when one is actively engaged in their study.
The Gemara returns to analyzing the Tosefta. From where may it be inferred that this expression: “You shall not be afraid [taguru]” (Deuteronomy 1:17), is a term for gathering in, so that the term may be interpreted to mean that a judge may not keep his ruling to himself? Rav Naḥman said: The verse states: “You shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but you shall neither drink of the wine, nor gather [te’egor]” (Deuteronomy 28:39). Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says it is derived from here: “She provides her bread in the summer, and gathers [agra] her food in the harvest” (Proverbs 6:8). Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says it is derived from here: “A wise son gathers [oger] in the summer” (Proverbs 10:5).
The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had many extraneous letters in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: We said that one may not correct the scroll only in a case where the letters are missing.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely [apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouth between the consumption of each.
With regard to the instruction: Do not go out alone at night, the Gemara states that this is as it was taught in a baraita: One should not go out alone at night, neither on Tuesday nights nor on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights, because the demon Agrat, daughter of Maḥalat, she and 180,000 angels of destruction go out at these times. And as each and every one of them has permission to destroy by itself, they are all the more dangerous when they go forth together.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if the court administered a vow to a divorcée and not an oath, then this is not sufficient to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract? But didn’t they send from there, from Eretz Yisrael, a document that states the following: How so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, received a bill of divorce from the hand of Aḥa bar Hidya, who is called Ayya Mari, and she took a vow and prohibited the produce of the world to herself, based on the truth of her statement that she did not receive from her marriage contract anything other than one coat [gelofkera], and one book of Psalms, and a book of Job, and a book of Proverbs, all of which were worn out.
The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yonatan disagrees with Rav, as Rav said: There is no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation, and there is one in our generation. The Gemara asks: And who is the great penitent in Rav’s generation? The Gemara answers: He is Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, and some say it is Aḥa, brother of Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, as the Master said: Rabbi Abba and Aḥa were brothers.
The Gemara cites a related story: The diggers who were digging in Rav Naḥman’s land came upon a grave, and Rav Aḥai bar Yoshiya, who was buried there, rebuked them. They came and said to Rav Naḥman: A deceased person just rebuked us. Rav Naḥman came and said to the person buried there: Who is the Master, i.e., who are you? He said to him: I am Aḥai bar Yoshiya. Rav Naḥman said to him: How has your body been preserved? Didn’t Rav Mari say that the righteous will turn to dust? Rav Aḥai said to him: And who is Mari, whom I do not know? Why should I be concerned about what he says? Rav Naḥman said to him: Even without Rav Mari’s statement, there is an explicit verse which is written: “And the dust will return to the earth as it was” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
by Aḥai the Distinguished [beribbi]: If one saw an animal with the appearance of a pig that was trailing after a ewe, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? If we say he is inquiring with regard to the firstborn status of the future offspring, and he is therefore essentially asking if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then let the dilemma be raised with respect to the more common case of a lamb, rather than the irregular case of a pig-like animal.
Rava said: And because Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught this halakha, has he hung ornamental rings on that line of reasoning, i.e., does that constitute an absolute proof? The difficulty posed by Rava from the mishna is not resolved by the baraita, as we learned: In what case is this statement that one is permitted to carry phylacteries inside said? It is with regard to old phylacteries. However, with regard to new ones, he is exempt. Apparently, there is concern lest one exert himself to fashion an object similar to one used in a mitzva.
Continuing the discussion of performing an obligation on behalf of others, Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, taught the following baraita: With regard to all the blessings, even if one already recited a blessing for himself and has consequently fulfilled his own obligation, he can still recite a blessing for others and thereby discharge their obligation, as all Jews are responsible for one another. This is true with regard to all blessings except for the blessing recited over bread and the blessing recited over wine, both before and after their consumption. With regard to these blessings, if he has not yet fulfilled his own obligation, he can discharge the obligation of others as well, but if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot discharge the obligation of others, as these blessings are recited in appreciation of physical enjoyment, and can only be recited by one who is actually deriving pleasure at the time.
Ahava, son of Rabbi Zeira, teaches: Any person who does not divine his future is brought inside a partition close to God to a place that even the ministering angels cannot enter inside, as it is stated: “For there is no divination with Jacob, neither is there any enchantment with Israel, now it is said to Jacob and Israel what has God wrought” (Numbers 23:23). In other words, matters are revealed to Israel that even the angels do not know, since Israel is closer to God than the angels.
There are three Torah scholars who, despite their greatness in Torah, were never given the title Rabbi, and whose appearance in a dream is significant: One who sees Ben Azzai in a dream should anticipate piety; one who sees Ben Zoma should anticipate wisdom; and one who sees Aḥer, Elisha ben Avuya, should be concerned about calamity, as he strayed from the path of righteousness.
§ The Sages taught: Four entered the orchard [pardes], i.e., dealt with the loftiest secrets of Torah, and they are as follows: Ben Azzai; and ben Zoma; Aḥer, the other, a name for Elisha ben Avuya; and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva, the senior among them, said to them: When, upon your arrival in the upper worlds, you reach pure marble stones, do not say: Water, water, although they appear to be water, because it is stated: “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7).
The Gemara proceeds to relate what happened to each of them: Ben Azzai glimpsed at the Divine Presence and died. And with regard to him the verse states: “Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15). Ben Zoma glimpsed at the Divine Presence and was harmed, i.e., he lost his mind. And with regard to him the verse states: “Have you found honey? Eat as much as is sufficient for you, lest you become full from it and vomit it” (Proverbs 25:16). Aḥer chopped down the shoots of saplings. In other words, he became a heretic. Rabbi Akiva came out safely.
Similarly, our Sages relied on the statement of Aḥi Shakkaya, who said: I once brought Rav Huna on a Festival from the town of Hinei to the town of Shilei and from Shilei back to Hinei on a chair of this kind. And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I once brought Mar Shmuel on such a seat on a Festival from the sun into the shade and from the shade into the sun. All of these incidents indicate that it is in fact permitted to use such a chair on a Festival. The Gemara answers: These cases pose no difficulty, as there, it is in accordance with the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi stated: If many people need him, it is permitted. However, one who is not needed by the public may not go out in such a chair.
The Gemara relates: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad. Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.
§ The Gemara relates that Aivu, father of the amora Rav, said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him to fulfill the mitzva. He took it and waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he holds that the mitzva of the willow branch is a custom of the prophets and is therefore performed without a blessing. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Aivu and Ḥizkiya, sons of the daughter of Rav, brought a willow branch before Rav to fulfill the mitzva. He waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he, too, holds that it is a custom of the prophets.
Apropos the exchange between Aivu and Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, the Gemara cites another halakha that was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man came before him and said to him: I have villages, I have olive groves, and I have olives, and the villagers come and hoe the olive groves during the Sabbatical Year and eat from the olive trees. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to allow this to continue? He said to him: It is inappropriate. As the man was leaving him and going on his way, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: I have already resided in this land for forty years and I have not seen a person walk in a path as straight as this man does. The man came back to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok and said to him: What should I do to ameliorate the situation? He said to him: Declare the olives ownerless for the poor, and give perutot coins to hired laborers as payment to hoe the olive groves.
An additional halakha was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: A person should not walk on Shabbat eves more than a distance of three parasangs [parsaot]. Rather, he should reach the place where he will stay on Shabbat early enough to ensure that he will have meals prepared for Shabbat. Rav Kahana said: We said that restriction only with regard to a case where he is returning to his house. However, if he is going to an inn, he relies on the food that he took with him. As he cannot assume that he will find lodgings with food, he brings food sufficient for his needs. Therefore, it is permitted for him to travel a greater distance.
§ The Gemara relates that Aivu, father of the amora Rav, said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him to fulfill the mitzva. He took it and waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he holds that the mitzva of the willow branch is a custom of the prophets and is therefore performed without a blessing. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Aivu and Ḥizkiya, sons of the daughter of Rav, brought a willow branch before Rav to fulfill the mitzva. He waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he, too, holds that it is a custom of the prophets.
Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that it was not in that case that Akavya deemed use of the detached wool permitted while the Rabbis deem it prohibited, since if he slaughtered the animal, everyone agrees that use of the wool is permitted. They disagree in a case where the detached wool came from a dead animal that was not slaughtered.
Rava said: No, the interpretation of Reish Lakish is not the subject of their dispute, as everyone agrees that if an expert deemed the animal permitted before its wool was shed, then yes, use of the wool is permitted, but if an expert did not deem the animal permitted beforehand then the use of its wool is not permitted. And there are three disputes concerning this matter, as the first tanna holds: Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a case where the firstborn died, and the same is true, i.e., they disagree, in a case where he slaughtered it. And the reason that the first tanna states they disagree specifically in a case where it died is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Akavya, i.e., that he deems use of the wool permitted even if the animal was not slaughtered.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that is difficult: But in what case did he issue this ruling? If we say it was in a case where he slaughtered it that cannot be correct, as whether the halakha follows the opinion of Akavya or whether it follows the opinion of the Rabbis, in both this case of wool that appears to be part of the fleece and that case where it does not, the use of the wool is permitted.
And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben Ḥanokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordinance of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism.
And that which we learned elsewhere in a mishna with regard to the ban placed upon Akavya ben Mahalalel for having spoken harshly about Shemaya and Avtalyon, that Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was banned; it must have been someone else, as even when the entire Jewish people would come to Jerusalem for the Festival, the Temple courtyard would not close on any man from Israel as full of wisdom and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel; Abaye can explain this statement according to his opinion, and Rava can also explain it according to his opinion. Abaye can explain it according to his opinion as follows: No man from Israel was in the Temple courtyard when it closed by itself who was as full of wisdom and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rava, too, can explain it according to his opinion as follows: No man from Israel was in the Temple courtyard when they closed it who was as full of wisdom and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel.
“Between blood and blood”; this is the ability to discern between the disparate halakhot relevant to the blood of menstruation, the blood of childbirth, and the blood of a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. In each of these cases, there is a dispute between the Sages with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet. In the case of the blood of menstruation, it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Akavya ben Mahalalel and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 19a): With regard to blood that is green that is discharged by a woman, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it blood of menstruation and impure, and the Rabbis deem it pure. According to Akavya ben Mahalalel, one who engages in intercourse with a woman who discharged green blood is liable to receive karet, while according to the Rabbis, he is exempt.
The Gemara relates: And there was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the Sages who were sitting in an upper floor in Jericho and they brought dates before them and they ate. And afterwards, Rabban Gamliel gave Rabbi Akiva permission to recite the blessing. Rabbi Akiva hurried and recited one blessing abridged from the three blessings of Grace after Meals. Rabban Gamliel said: Akiva, until when will you continue to stick your head into the dispute among the Sages with regard to what you did? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Our teacher, even though you say this while your colleagues disagree and say that, you taught us, our teacher, the general principle that guides resolution of halakhic disputes: In a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many. Although you are the Nasi, it is appropriate to act in accordance with the opinion of the many.
The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. The Sages taught: One time, after the bar Kokheva rebellion, the evil empire of Rome decreed that Israel may not engage in the study and practice of Torah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torah study. Pappos said to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire?
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.
He said to them: Didn’t Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef also intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz Yisrael? They replied to him: Leave the case of Rabbi Akiva, as, when he left, he did not leave behind anyone as great in Torah as he in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to them: I also did not leave behind anyone as great as me in Eretz Yisrael. They said to him: The kids who you left behind have grown into goats with horns; they are greater than you are. And they sent us to you, and this is what they said to us: Go and tell him in our name: If he obeys, fine; and if he does not obey, he will be ostracized.
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas recited this verse about Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread” (Psalms 37:25). He interpreted this verse to mean that the son of a Torah scholar also becomes a Torah scholar. He grabbed him and sat him on a bed of gold. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Rabbi, call your other disciple so that he may sit. He said to him: Who is that? He said to him: Akiva ben Yosef. Rabbi Dosa said to him: You are Akiva ben Yosef, whose name has spread from one end of the world to the other? Even Rabbi Dosa had heard of Rabbi Akiva’s reputation as a great man. Sit, my son, sit. May the likes of you multiply in Israel.
Yonatan ben Harkinas grew angry and said to him: You are Akiva ben Yosef, whose name has spread from one end of the world to the other? Be happy that you have merited a great name, and yet you have not yet reached the level of cattle herders. Cattle herders were generally simple individuals who were not familiar even with ordinary matters, and certainly not with halakha. Rabbi Akiva said to him with characteristic modesty: And I have not even reached the level of shepherds, who are considered even worse than cattle herders, as they are unfit for giving testimony.
§ The mishna taught: All were permitted to eulogize and fast on the days of slaughter, in order not to uphold the opinion of the Sadducees, who would say: Shavuot must always occur after Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it stated: An incident occurred when Alexa died in Lod, and all of Israel gathered to eulogize him, but Rabbi Tarfon would not allow them do so because it was the Festival day of Shavuot?
What occurred on that date? It was on that day that the Samaritans [kutim] requested the House of our Lord from Alexander the Macedonian in order to destroy it, and he gave it to them, i.e., he gave them permission to destroy it. People came and informed the High Priest, Shimon HaTzaddik, of what had transpired. What did he do? He donned the priestly vestments and wrapped himself in the priestly vestments. And the nobles of the Jewish People were with him, with torches of fire in their hands. And all that night, these, the representatives of the Jewish people, approached from this side, and those, the armies of Alexander and the Samaritans, approached from that side, until dawn, when they finally saw one another.
After depicting the glory of the synagogue, the Gemara relates that Abaye said: All of the people who congregated in that synagogue were killed by Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were punished and killed? It is due to the fact that they violated the prohibition with regard to Egypt in this verse: “You shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and they returned. Since they established their permanent place of residence in Egypt, they were punished.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.
§ Apropos Geviha ben Pesisa and his cleverness in debate, the Gemara cites additional incidents where he represented the Jewish people in debates. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.
The Gemara relates: On another occasion, the people of Egypt came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. The Egyptian people said to Alexander: It says in the Torah: “And the Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent them” (Exodus 12:36). Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it.
Alexander the king said to the people of Afrikiya: Provide Geviha ben Pesisa with a response to his claims. They said to Alexander: Give us time; give us three days to consider the matter. The emperor gave them the requested time and they examined the matter and did not find a response to the claims. Immediately, they fled and abandoned their fields when they were sown and their vineyards when they were planted. The Gemara adds: And since that year was a Sabbatical Year, with the accompanying restrictions on agricultural activity, this benefited the Jewish people, as they were able to consume the produce of those fields and vineyards.
§ It was taught in the mishna that they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: They were not actually Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians from Egypt. And since in Eretz Yisrael they hate the Babylonians, they would call all foreigners who acted inappropriately by their name as an insult. Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: They were not Babylonians, rather they were Alexandrians. Rabbi Yosei, whose family was from Babylonia, said to him: May your mind be at ease, since you have put my mind at ease.
§ The mishna states: If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed on Saturday night. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten Friday night, on Shabbat. Since there was no possibility of cooking the meat, the Babylonian priests would eat it raw. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians, i.e., priests who came from Egypt. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Jewish Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians.
This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians. Rabbi Yehuda, whose family originated from Babylonia, said to Rabbi Yosei, after hearing this explanation: May your mind be at ease, because you have put my mind at ease.
So too, Ameimar thought to institute this in the city of Neharde’a. Rav Ashi, the most prominent of the Sages in that generation, said to him: They already abolished them due to the grievance of the heretics.
Since several opinions were expressed on the subject, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this? It was stated that the halakha is subject to dispute: Reciting sacred matters opposite feces as dry as earthenware; Ameimar said: It is prohibited, and Mar Zutra said: It is permitted. Rava said that the halakha is: Opposite feces as dry as earthenware it is prohibited, and opposite urine, it is prohibited as long as it moistens.
Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer.
Incidentally, the Gemara inquires: From what does this defect arise? What is its cause? The Gemara answers: It results from his mother baking bread at noon and drinking strong beer [shikhra marka] while pregnant. The excessive heating of the mother’s body causes her child to be born with defective reproductive organs. Rav Yosef said: This is the meaning of that which I heard Rabbi Ami say: Anyone who is impaired from his mother’s womb, and at the time I did not know what he was referring to. Now I understand that he was speaking about a man who was infertile from birth.
Rava said, in contrast to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, that one who defames an orphan is obligated to pay the fine. From where does he learn this? He learns this from the fact that Ami taught that the fine applies to one who defamed “a virgin of Israel” (Deuteronomy 22:19) and does not apply to one who defamed a virgin who is a convert.
In answer to this question, Rava said: The verse cannot be excluding that case, as Ami said to me that the case where she already entered the wedding canopy is not derived by inference from that verse; it is explicitly written in the following verse: “If there is a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a man” (Deuteronomy 22:23). The terminology of the verse indicates that it applies to a “young woman” and not to a grown woman; to a “virgin” and not to a non-virgin; and to a “betrothed” woman and not to a married woman.
Rabbi Ami sent the following message to the other Sages: From me, Ami bar Natan, Torah emerges to all of Israel: If a slave fled his master and gave himself to a foreign army to serve as a solider, and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, then he is permitted to take the slave’s value, and he writes a deed of sale and registers this transaction in gentile courts, because he is like one who rescues the money from their possession.
§ The Gemara relates that Ami of Vardina was the examiner of firstborns in the household of the Nasi. On Festivals he would not examine firstborn blemishes. They came and told Rabbi Ami about this. He said to them: He does well not to examine them. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ami himself examine firstborns for blemishes on a Festival? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Ami would examine the blemishes of firstborns, it was on the day before the Festival that he would examine them, to see whether the blemishes were permanent or temporary.
The Gemara cites yet another definition of the color described in the mishna as: Red as the blood that flows from a wound. The Sage Ami of Vardina says that Rabbi Abbahu says: It is red as the blood that flows from the smallest finger of the hand, which was wounded and later healed and was subsequently wounded again. And this is not referring to the finger of any person, but specifically to the finger of a young man who has not yet married a woman. And furthermore, this does not mean any young man; rather, until what age must he be? Until twenty years old.
§ It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to a similar question: In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment for others to whom he owes a debt, and a river flooded the field in a way that caused permanent damage, the Sage known as Ami Shappir Na’e, literally meaning Ami the Beautiful, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The creditor does not collect from other property, and because this field was ruined the creditor incurs a loss. And Shmuel’s father said: He collects from other property.
It was further related that Rav Yehuda permitted Ami the oven maker to construct ovens on the intermediate days of a Festival and Rabba bar Ashabi to craft sieves. The Gemara asks: Is that really so? Didn’t Rabba bar Shmuel teach the following baraita: And they all agree that one may not construct a new oven on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: Here, where Rav Yehuda permitted constructing an oven, he was referring to the summer, i.e., when the weather is hot and dry, so the oven can dry out and already be fit for use on the Festival; there, where the baraita prohibits constructing an oven, it is referring to the rainy season, i.e., when the weather is such that the oven will not be ready for use on the Festival.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The Gemara relates: Amram the dyer was a steward for orphans, and the orphans’ relatives once came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: He dresses and covers himself with clothing purchased from the property of the orphans. Rav Naḥman said to them: Perhaps he does this in order that his words be heard, meaning that he dresses himself in finery at the orphans’ expense in order to better manage their property, as he will be ignored if he appears to be a poor person.
And it is taught in a baraita that this is the basis for Rabbi Yehuda’s distinction: They told Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving an armed bandit [listim] who was taken out to be executed in the passage [megizat] of Cappadocia, and he said to those present: Go and tell the wife of Shimon the Priest that I killed her husband as I entered Lod. And some say that he said: As he entered Lod. And they married off his wife on the basis of this testimony. This implies that the court accepts testimony from the murderer himself. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: You derive proof from there? The case was that he said: I was with his murderers, but not that he himself murdered the woman’s husband.
The Gemara challenges: How could Rabbi Yehuda understand the incident in such a way? But it is taught in the baraita that the witness himself was an armed bandit. The Gemara answers: He was captured for a charge of armed banditry. The Gemara asks: But it is taught that he was taken out to be executed, implying that he was found guilty of murder. The Gemara answers: That was a gentile court, and they execute without being precise. One who is among a gang of bandits is executed by a gentile court regardless of whether or not he himself was a murderer. This baraita therefore provides evidence that Rabbi Yehuda admits the testimony of such a witness only if he says: I was with his murderers.
a gambler [kuvyustus], it has come to him, meaning that the seller has caught the buyer in a binding transaction, and he cannot annul the sale due to this kind of defect, as these characteristics are common in slaves. What is the halakha if it was discovered that the slave was an armed bandit or that the king had signed his death warrant, and there is a danger that the government will catch him and execute him? These are serious and uncommon defects that in principle could invalidate a sale. However, these defects generate publicity. In such unusual and severe circumstances, everyone is aware of them. Therefore, it is assumed that the buyer knew about them as well and nevertheless acquiesced to buy the slave. Consequently, there is no reason to revoke the sale of a slave.
And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving an examiner [artavin], who was examining mezuzot in the upper marketplace of Tzippori during a period when decrees were issued against the Jewish people, and a Roman official [kasdor] found him and collected a fine of one thousand zuz from him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is permanent it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issues the command, there is concern with regard to a clear and present danger.
The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Rabbi Meir holds that it is considered a burden and not an ornament, and one who carries a burden into the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering. And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament. Why, then, did they prohibit going out into the public domain wearing it? They are concerned lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose manner is it to go out with a city of gold ornament? Only an important woman, and in that case there is no concern, as an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
Rav Ashi taught this disagreement with a lenient interpretation, as he said: With a kelilaof woven fabric, everyone agrees that it is permitted to go out into the public domain. Where they disagree is in the case of a metal ornament. One Sage, Rav, holds that it is prohibited because there is concern lest she remove it, and show it to another, and come to carry it in the public domain. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that it is permitted. Whose manner is to go out with a kelila ornament? Only an important woman; and an important woman does not remove ornaments and show them to others.
A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman, she is required to recline. A son who is with his father is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher? Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence.
Everyone agrees that one who leavens a meal-offering after one who already leavened it is liable for the additional leavening, as it is stated: “It shall not be baked leavened” (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: “No offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Leviticus 2:11). The Sages interpreted this to mean that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a Temple offering. Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable, as it is stated: “Those whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24). Presumably, if one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, when the testicles are detached altogether all the more so one is liable. Rather, this comes to include that one who detaches after one who cuts is liable. Apparently, one is liable for sterilizing one who is already castrated. Rather, we must say that it is permitted to use a remedy that causes sterility in an old man who is no longer capable of procreating.
The Sages taught: No one was ever crushed by the great throngs of people in the Temple courtyard, except for one Passover in the days of Hillel when an old man was crushed, and they called that Passover the Passover of the crushed.
Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: One time I found an old man who had in his hand a scroll with the location and formula for blending of spices. I said to him: Where are you from? What is your ancestry? He said to me: I am from the House of Avtinas. I asked him: And what is in your hand? He said to me: A scroll of spices. I said to him: Show it to me. He said to me: As long as the House of Avtinas, my forefathers, was extant, they would not pass it on to anyone. And now, here it is; and be careful with it not to give it to anyone. And when I came and related my statement before Rabbi Akiva, he said to me: And now that they have surrendered the scroll to worthy recipients since they are unable to maintain its sanctity, it is prohibited to mention them unfavorably, as even their earlier reticence was apparently for the glory of God.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the city of Sura and the following was written in it: In the city of Sura, I, Anan bar Ḥiyya of Neharde’a, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Neharde’a, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar Ḥiyya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra who was in Neharde’a. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra was with us in Neharde’a, not in Sura.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the city of Sura and the following was written in it: In the city of Sura, I, Anan bar Ḥiyya of Neharde’a, excused and sent away and divorced my wife, so-and-so. And the Sages examined the area from Sura to Neharde’a, throughout almost all of Babylonia, and there was no other Anan bar Ḥiyya than the one they knew, apart from an Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra who was in Neharde’a. And yet witnesses came and said that on that day, when that bill of divorce was written: Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra was with us in Neharde’a, not in Sura.
This discussion in the Gemara concludes with a Tosefta that arrives at a hierarchy of angels based on the number of flights required by each to arrive at his destination. It was taught in a Tosefta: Michael, as stated above, in one flight; Gabriel, in two flights; Elijah the Prophet, in four flights; and the Angel of Death, in eight flights. During a time of plague, however, when the Angel of Death seems ubiquitous, he arrives everywhere in one flight.
Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The Angel of Death told me three things: Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not ritually wash your hands from one who has not ritually washed his own hands; and do not stand before the women when they return from the burial of the deceased, because I dance and come before them and my sword is in hand, and I have license to destroy.
What did David do? Every Shabbat he would sit and learn all day long to protect himself from the Angel of Death. On that day on which the Angel of Death was supposed to put his soul to rest, the day on which David was supposed to die, the Angel of Death stood before him and was unable to overcome him because his mouth did not pause from study. The Angel of Death said: What shall I do to him? David had a garden [bustana] behind his house; the Angel of Death came, climbed, and shook the trees. David went out to see. As he climbed the stair, the stair broke beneath him. He was startled and was silent, interrupted his studies for a moment, and died.
§ Apropos exchanges with prominent gentile leaders, the Gemara cites an exchange where Antoninos, the Roman emperor, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The body and the soul are able to exempt themselves from judgment for their sins. How so? The body says: The soul sinned, as from the day of my death when it departed from me, I am cast like a silent stone in the grave, and do not sin. And the soul says: The body sinned, as from the day that I departed from it, I am flying in the air like a bird, incapable of sin. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who had a fine orchard, and in it there were
The Gemara relates another exchange. Antoninos said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: For what reason does the sun emerge in the east and set in the west? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If it were the reverse, you would have also said that to me, as the sun must emerge from one direction and set in the other. Antoninos said to him: This is what I am saying to you: For what reason does the sun set in the west and not occasionally deviate and set elsewhere?
And Antoninos said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From when is the soul placed in a person? Is it from the moment of conception or from the moment of the formation of the embryo, forty days after conception? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is from the moment of the formation of the embryo. Antoninos said to him: That is inconceivable. Is it possible that a piece of meat could stand for even three days without salt as a preservative and would not rot? The embryo could not exist for forty days without a soul. Rather, the soul is placed in man from the moment of conception. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Antoninos taught me this matter, and there is a verse that supports him, as it is stated: “And Your Providence [pekudatekha] has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:12) indicating that it is from the moment of conception [pekida] that the soul is preserved within a person.
With regard to this matter, Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Joseph hid three treasures in Egypt. One of them was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to Antoninos ben Asveiros, king of Rome, and one is hidden for the righteous in the future.
It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Why are they called cucumbers [kishu’im]? Because they are as harmful [kashim] to the body as swords. The Gemara asks: Is that really so? Is it not written: “And the Lord said unto her: Two nations [goyim] are in your womb” (Genesis 25:23) and the Gemara says: Do not read it as goyim, rather read it as gayim, proud ones. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This verse was fulfilled in these two great individuals who descended from Rebecca: Antoninus and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whose tables, because of their wealth, never lacked for radish, lettuce or cucumbers, neither in summer nor in the rainy season. Apparently, cucumbers are good and are even a delicacy of kings.
The Gemara provides the background for this assertion. It is related that Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I wish for Asveirus my son to rule instead of me, and that the city Tiberias be released [kelaneya] from paying taxes. And if I tell the Roman senate one of my wishes, they will do as I wish, but if I ask for two of them they will not do as I wish. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conveyed his answer in the following manner: He brought a man, placed him on the shoulders of another man, and put a dove in the hands of the one on top. And he said to the one on the bottom: Tell the one on top that he should cause the dove to fly from his hands. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should ask the Senate: Let Asveirus my son rule instead of me, and say to Asveirus that he should release Tiberias from paying taxes.
The Gemara relates: Antoninus would attend to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and similarly the Persian king Adrakan would attend to Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The bundle is separated. When Adrakan died, Rav likewise said:
This is also taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Her kings,” but not: All of her kings, and: “All her leaders,” but not: All of her officers. The inference learned from the wording of the verse: “Her kings,” but not: All of her kings, serves to exclude Antoninus the son of Asveirus; and the inference from the wording: “All her leaders,” but not: All of her officers, serves to exclude the Roman officer Ketia, son of Shalom.
Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Joseph concealed three buried treasures in Egypt that he accumulated from the sale of grain during the years of famine. The location of one was revealed to Korah, and the location of one was revealed to Antoninus, son of Asveirus, emperor of Rome, and one remains hidden for the righteous in the future, i.e., in the messianic era.
MISHNA: A wise gentile, Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?
Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. Furthermore, people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. Therefore, the main structure is not the Aphrodite statue, but the bathhouse.
Rabba bar Ulla said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him that people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. He explains: And even if people say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite, what of it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says: This house is hereby dedicated to idol worship, or: This cup is hereby dedicated to idol worship, he has said nothing, i.e., his words take no effect, as there is nohalakha of consecration with regard to objects of idol worship. While one can consecrate an item to the Temple through verbal designation, there is no such method for according idolatrous status to an object. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel’s deception lies in his indication that such a formulation would render the bathhouse forbidden as an object of idol worship.
the tablets were broken by Moses when he saw that the Jews had made the golden calf; the daily offering was nullified by the Roman authorities and was never sacrificed again; the city walls of Jerusalem were breached; the general Apostemos publicly burned a Torah scroll; and Manasseh placed an idol in the Sanctuary.
The baraita mentions lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia. What is a pakia? Rav said: It is a madra. However, the meaning of that term also became unclear over time, so the Gemara asks: What is a madra? Rav Pappa said: It is a whip [matraka] used by the Arabs, the end of which is split into several strands. That is the pakia mentioned above, which was used for punishing the priests.
Rav said: If I had not seen my beloved uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, conduct a Ḥalitza using a sandal with laces, I would not have conducted Ḥalitza with anything other than a sandal of Arabs, which is more tight fitting and snug. The Gemara explains: And with regard to this sandal of ours, i.e., the customary sandal of that day, although it does have a ring [Ḥumrata] on top to ensure that it will not fall off the foot easily, we tie a strap to it during Ḥalitza in order to make it tighter, so that her Ḥalitza will be of the highest standard. The strap is tied on so that the sandal will not come off by itself, to ensure that the yevama will have to untie the strap in order to remove the sandal.
Apropos the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon, the Gemara relates what later became of her: The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. When he was riding on a donkey and leaving Jerusalem, and his students were walking after him to learn from him, he saw a certain young woman who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung. When she saw him, she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself, and stood before him.
Rabbi Dostai said to him: Those people who were in possession of the vessel, they are the size of a cubit, and their hats were a cubit, and they spoke from their midpoints, and their names were frightening: Arda and Arta and Pili Bereish. If one were to say to them: Restrain this person, they would restrain him. If one were to say to them: Kill him, they would kill. Had they killed Dostai, i.e., me, who would give Yannai, my father, another son like me?
§ The mishna taught that during the war of Titus the Sages decreed that a person should not teach his son Greek. The Sages taught that this decree came about as a result of the following incident: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other in their civil war, Hyrcanus was outside of Jerusalem, besieging it, and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box from inside the city, and those on the outside would send up animals for them to bring the daily offerings in the Temple.
§ The mishna teaches: There was an incident where the omer came from Gaggot Tzerifin and the two loaves on Shavuot came from the valley of Ein Sokher. The Sages taught a baraita that provides the background of this event: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other in their civil war, Hyrcanus was outside of Jerusalem, besieging it, and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box from inside the city, and those on the outside would send up animals for them to bring the daily offerings in the Temple.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita the background for this halakha: When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem, while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside. And every day the people inside would lower down money in a box from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings.
And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze’irat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: “And the hare [arnevet]” (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy’s wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.
Rabbi Yosei said: That was not always the case. There was an incident where a person named Arsela led the goat to the wilderness, and he was an Israelite. And they made a ramp for the goat due to the Babylonian Jews who were in Jerusalem, who would pluck at the goat’s hair and would say to the goat: Take our sins and go, take our sins and go, and do not leave them with us.
Rabbi Dostai said to him: Those people who were in possession of the vessel, they are the size of a cubit, and their hats were a cubit, and they spoke from their midpoints, and their names were frightening: Arda and Arta and Pili Bereish. If one were to say to them: Restrain this person, they would restrain him. If one were to say to them: Kill him, they would kill. Had they killed Dostai, i.e., me, who would give Yannai, my father, another son like me?
When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet who sat and said to him in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.
The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. Didn’t Rav also say that one may place a saddlecloth on a donkey on Shabbat? With regard to a saddlecloth they agree. Why then did Rabbi Zeira attribute the ruling specifically to Shmuel? Rather, he heard Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet conclude: However, one may not hang a basket with fodder around the neck of an animal on Shabbat. It was that part of the statement that led him to say: You have spoken well, and Aryokh explained the matter likewise in Babylonia.
§ With regard to the prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara relates that Levi said to Shmuel: Aryokh, Shmuel’s nickname, supply me with such food, as I will not pick it on my own, and if you do so I will eat it. There is no reason for concern with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Avya and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan would supply produce whose orla status was uncertain for each other, as it is forbidden only if one takes the orla on his own. The sharp Sages of Pumbedita said: The prohibition of orla does not apply at all outside of Eretz Yisrael.
Ashiyan bar Nadbakh says in the name of Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit, but if the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh it is unfit. Rabbi Zeira says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Huna, and Rabbi Ya’akov says: This matter was explained to me by Rav Yehuda: If the inner part of the letter heh was perforated it is fit. In a case where the perforation was in the leg of the letter heh, then if there remained in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, then it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.
Ulla happened to come to the house of Asi bar Hini. The members of the household asked him: What is the halakha: Is it permitted to make a spout of one’s garment on Shabbat? Ulla said to them that this is what Rabbi Elai said: It is prohibited to make a spout on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the spout referred to here? Rabbi Zeira said: It is referring to Babylonian pockets, which were formed by lifting up the bottom of the cloaks and tying them to their shoulders to make pocket-like folds in their garments.
And if it is difficult for you that which was stated earlier, that the Romans do not appoint as king the son of the king, in fact they do appoint a son of the king as king through the request of the king. For example, there was Asveirus, son of Antoninus, who ruled at the request of Antoninus.
The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi Ḥanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.
§ After discussing exposed wine, the Gemara addresses the matter of exposed water. The attendant of Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi noticed that a certain jug of water had become exposed, and he had been sleeping near it. He went to Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi to determine the halakhic status of the exposed water. Rav Ḥilkiya said to him that the Sages said: Fear of a sleeping person is upon them, i.e., snakes will not attempt to drink from a container that is near a person, even if he is asleep. And this matter applies only during the day, but not at night. The Gemara comments: But that is not so. Rather, there is no difference between one who sleeps during the day and one who sleeps during the night. In both cases, we do not say that the fear of a sleeping person is upon the snakes.
And this idea, that one must exert great effort to retain one’s Torah knowledge, is in accordance with what Avdimi bar Ḥama bar Dosa said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It is not in heaven…nor is it beyond the sea” (Deuteronomy 30:12–13)? “It is not in heaven” indicates that if it were in heaven, you would have to ascend after it, and if it were beyond the sea, you would have to cross after it, as one must expend whatever effort is necessary in order to study Torah.
The Gemara goes on to ask: Can a mistake be reversed, enabling one to conduct himself as if he had not prayed? Didn’t Avidan, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say: Once the sky became overcast, leading the people to think that it was the dark of night; they entered the synagogue and recited the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. And later, the clouds cleared and the sun shone, indicating that it was still day.
The Gemara relates: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: What is the reason you did not come to the House of Avidan? This was a place in which dialogues and debates were conducted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to him enigmatically: The snowy mountain is surrounded with ice, meaning that his hair had turned white; his dogs do not bark, meaning that his voice could no longer be heard; his grinders have ceased grinding, meaning that his teeth had fallen out. In the school of Rav they say that he added: I am searching for that which I have not lost, because an old man walks bent over and appears to be searching for something.
to a gentile named Avidarna on their festival day. Rav Yehuda said: I know of him that he does not worship idols, so he is not considered a gentile with regard to the prohibition against giving a gift to a gentile on their festival. Rav Yosef said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three Ḥaverim to not worship idols. Avidarna had not accepted this upon himself before three Jews. Rav Yehuda replied to him: When thatbaraitais taught, it is with regard to the mitzva to sustain him.
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman was sitting, and Ulla and Avimei bar Rav Pappi were sitting as well, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami was sitting with them, when a certain man came before them whose betrothed wife had died. They said to him: Go and bury her, or give her heirs the sum stipulated in her marriage contract. Rav Ḥiyya said to them, in surprise at their response: But we learned that with regard to one’s betrothed wife he neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for her if he is a priest, and similarly, she neither assumes the status of an acute mourner nor becomes ritually impure for him. If she died he does not inherit from her, and if he died she collects payment of her marriage contract.
GEMARA:The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: Can an agent of the first agent also appoint another agent, or not? He said to them: You should not raise this dilemma. From the fact that the mishna teaches: The final agent does not need to say, as opposed to: The second agent does not need to say, it can be seen by inference that the second agent can appoint an agent, resulting in the existence of a final agent, not just a second agent.
The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach like this: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: When the agent of the first agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court?
Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav Pappa: A mustache may be trimmed from one corner to the other corner of the mouth. Rabbi Ami said: One may trim only the portion of the mustache that interferes with normal eating, but one may not trim the mustache for beautification. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For me, my entire mustache is considered like a mustache that interferes with normal eating, as I am particularly sensitive, and so I may trim my entire mustache.
§ Having mentioned Avitul the scribe, the Gemara records other statements of his: And Avitul the scribe said in the name of Rav Pappa: The Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses was a cubit tall, his beard was a cubit long, and his penis [parmashtako] was a cubit and a span, i.e., a cubit and the distance between the thumb and the little finger, in length, in order to fulfill what is stated: “And He sets up over it the lowest of men” (Daniel 4:14), which teaches that Pharaoh was extremely short and lowly.
Avitul the scribe also said in the name of Rav Pappa: The Pharaoh who lived in the days of Moses was a sorcerer [amgushi], as it is stated: “Behold, he goes out to the water” (Exodus 7:15). Pharaoh would regularly go out to the water in order to engage in witchcraft.
What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.
And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Hillel says: A full hin, twelve log, of drawn water poured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty se’adisqualifies the water of the ritual bath and accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty se’a, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one’s teacher, a person must speak employing the language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine kav of water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.
GEMARA:The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?
Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: An eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid. Rav Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid.
And if you wish, say instead: This stringent ruling is his; that lenient ruling with regard to an eiruvis his teacher’s. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this explanation, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid. This formulation indicates that Rabbi Yosei was merely reporting a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, although he may not have accepted it. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this resolution of the contradiction is correct.
The Gemara answers: The matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders: An etrog follows the time of its picking in the matter of tithes. But our Sages voted in Usha and said that an etrogfollows the time of its picking, both in the matter of tithes and in the matter of the Sabbatical Year.
The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government. Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the Sages exempted them from the general decree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans, this is considered one of the ways of the Amorites, i.e., a gentile practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3). Despite this, the Sages permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi, because he had close ties with the government. Likewise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom, because they had close ties with the government.
The Gemara answers: The members of the house of Rabban Gamliel are different, as they were close to the monarchy, and therefore had to learn Greek wisdom in order to converse with people of authority. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shabbat 7:1): One who cuts his hair in the komi style, which was the gentile fashion of cutting and wearing the hair, is considered to be acting in the ways of the Amorites, and it is prohibited to act in their way. However, they permitted Avtolos ben Reuven to cut his hair in the komi style, as he is close to the monarchy, and similarly they permitted the house of Rabban Gamliel to study Greek wisdom, because they are close to the monarchy.
The Gemara relates: Rav was the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half brother and the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half sister, as Ayevu, Rav’s father, married his own stepsister, Imma. When Rav ascended there, to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Is your father, Ayevu, alive? He said to him, replying with a question: Is your sister, Imma, alive? He said to him: Indeed, is Imma alive? He said to him: Is Ayevu alive? Upon hearing this, Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that both Ayevu and Imma had passed away, and Rav did not wish to say so explicitly.
Rav said: This version of the mishna should not be accepted because of what the Sage Ayo taught to the opposite effect, as Ayo taught the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot make conditions about two things at once, i.e., he cannot say that if one Sage comes from one direction and another Sage comes from the other direction, he will go wherever he wishes. Rather, he may say that if a Sage came from the east, his eiruv is in the east, and if a Sage came from the west, his eiruv is in the west. But he may not say that if one Sage came from here, and another Sage came from there, he will go wherever he wishes.
The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav’s statement cited above: Why should we reject the mishna because of the baraita? On the contrary, let us say that the ruling of Ayo should not be accepted because of the mishna.
Ulla also took note of this contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda, but he said the opposite: The statement of Ayo should not be accepted because it contradicts what is stated in the mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that which was taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit drinking the wine in this manner, indicates, as was demonstrated above, that Rabbi Yehuda rejects the principle of retroactive designation.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Ayvu said this halakha, and he said it about four cases, as opposed to the three cases mentioned previously. And one of them pertained to the tanning of hides, which lasts for the time that it takes a person to walk four mil. As we learned in a mishna: And all types of thin, soft hides, which have the status of flesh with regard to ritual impurity because their texture is similar to flesh, that were tanned in order to be made into leather, or that one trod upon for as long as necessary for the leatherworking process, are ritually pure. They are considered to be leather and are no longer considered like the flesh of the animal, except for the skin of a human corpse, which always remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: How much time must one tread upon a hide for the leatherworking process? Rabbi Ayvu said that Rabbi Yannai said: It is the amount of time it takes to walk four mil.
Rav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggled to teach you halakha but my efforts did not succeed, as you did not become a great scholar. Come and I will teach you about mundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dust from the road is still on your feet. As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that anything you sell might later cause you to regret the sale, except for wine, which you can sell without regret. Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that if the court administered a vow to a divorcée and not an oath, then this is not sufficient to enable her to collect payment of her marriage contract? But didn’t they send from there, from Eretz Yisrael, a document that states the following: How so-and-so, the daughter of so-and-so, received a bill of divorce from the hand of Aḥa bar Hidya, who is called Ayya Mari, and she took a vow and prohibited the produce of the world to herself, based on the truth of her statement that she did not receive from her marriage contract anything other than one coat [gelofkera], and one book of Psalms, and a book of Job, and a book of Proverbs, all of which were worn out.
Similarly, Abaye said: Those Babylonian Torah scholars, according to the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is voluntary, once one of them loosens his belt, we do not impose upon him to stop his meal and pray. And the Gemara wonders: And according to the opinion of the one who said that the evening prayer is obligatory, we do impose upon him? Doesn’t everyone agree that the afternoon prayer is obligatory? And we learned in our mishna that if they started eating, they need not stop. And with regard to that halakha, Rabbi Ḥanina said: The beginning of the meal is from when he loosens his belt.
With regard to Babylonian kuta?, a spice that contains leavened bread crumbs, and all kinds of kuta?, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kuta? is used exclusively as a spice, it lasts longer than other foods.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Babylonian wood does not require that most of it catch fire. Rav Yosef the Babylonian objects: What is that wood that they use in Babylonia that burns so well? If you say that it refers to wood slivers used for burning and light, now that with regard to a wick, Ulla said that one who lights it for a Shabbat lamp must light most of what emerges from the vessel; is it necessary to mention with regard to wood slivers that most of them must be lit? Rather, Rav Yosef said: Certainly the reference is to the branch of a cedar tree. And Rami bar Abba said: The reference here is to a hyssop [zaza].
who wagered with each other and said: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel to the point that he reprimands him, will take four-hundredzuz. One of them said: I will aggravate him. That day that he chose to bother Hillel was Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing the hair on his head. He went and passed the entrance to Hillel’s house and in a demeaning manner said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Hillel wrapped himself in a dignified garment and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. Hillel said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked him: Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. He said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they do not have clever midwives. They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.
When Ravin ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav Sheshet before Rabbi Yirmeya. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya?
the dates that grow there plentifully, which gave them strength and allowed them to engage in Torah study. The Gemara records a related incident: Ulla visited Pumbedita, and his hosts brought him a basket [tirina] of dates. He said to them: How many baskets of dates like these can one purchase for a zuz? They said to him: One can purchase three for a zuz. He said: How can it be that it is possible to purchase a basketful of date honey for just a single zuz, and yet the Babylonians do not engage in Torah study more extensively? Since the cost of food is so low and they do not need to work hard to support themselves, the Babylonians should be more extensively engaged in Torah study.
The Sage Baha says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A set-aside animal is prohibited only until its owner feeds it vetches of idolatry after it has been given to the attendants of idolatry. Rabbi Abba said to Baha: Do you dispute the statement of Ulla, who defined set-aside differently according the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? Baha said to Rabbi Abba: No, I do not disagree with Ulla, as Ulla too, when he stated his definition, also was referring to a case where they fed it vetches of idolatry.
Rabbi Abba said: Baha knows how to explain this halakha, but had he not ascended from Babylonia to there, Eretz Yisrael, he would not have known this explanation, as Eretz Yisrael caused him to grow wise. Rav Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Abba: That is not the case, as Baha was from here and there, i.e., he became wise because he studied Torah in both places.
The Sages taught: One fulfills the obligation to eat matzaon Passover with fine bread, with coarse bread, and after the fact withmatzashaped in figures, although they said that one should not bakematzashaped in figures on Passoverab initio. Rav Yehuda said that Baitos ben Zonin asked the Sages about this matter: Why did the Sages say that one may not preparematzashaped in figures on Passoverab initio? They said to him: The reason is because a woman will tarry over it as she prepares the bread, so that she can form the figure before it is baked, and she will thereby cause it to become leavened.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted. Since it is possible that the sale might never be undone, in which case there would be no loan to speak of, it is a case of uncertain interest, which is permitted. And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunen, who made a conditional sale of his field in a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the buyer was consuming the produce in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring a proof from there? In that case, it was actually the seller who was consuming the produce and not the buyer.
The tanna relates: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Sages: An incident occurred involving Baitos ben Zunin, who performed a sale of his field on the basis of a directive from Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and that was a case where the buyer consumed the produce. The Sages said to the tanna: Will you bring a proof from there? The reverse was the case: It was the seller, not the buyer, who consumed the produce.
MISHNA: If one sold another a field and the buyer gave him some of the money, and the seller said to him: Whenever you wish, bring the outstanding money and take your field at that point, this is prohibited. If one lent money to another on the basis of the borrower’s field serving as a guarantee, and said to him: If you do not give me the money now and instead delay your payment from now until three years have passed, the field is mine, then after three years, the field is his. This is permitted even if the field is worth more than the amount of the loan. And this is what Baitos ben Zunin would do, with the consent of the Sages, when he lent money.
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.
And in the end, they too, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, would analyze names. When they came to a house of a landlord named Bala, they did not enter. They said: Conclude from here that he is certainly wicked, as it is written: “I said of her who was worn out [bala] by adulteries” (Ezekiel 23:43), as it states: “After I am grown old [beloti] shall I have pleasure?” (Genesis 18:12). “Worn out by adulteries” means aged through adulteries.
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited? But doesn’t Balei say that Avimi of Nota [Nota’a] says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions of gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters decreed in a single day in the days of the students of Shammai and Hillel. Apparently, Rav himself maintains that the prohibition was not instituted by Daniel.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.
Rava summarized and said: The halakha is that less than three handbreadths is considered connected and it is permitted to recite Shema. Ten handbreadths is a separate domain. Three to ten handbreadths is the case with regard to which Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and Rav Huna did not resolve it for him. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And, so too, the Sage Bali said that Rav Ya’akov, son of Shmuel’s daughter, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And Rava said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
And the other decree: The Sage Bali said that Avimi of Sanvata said: The decrees with regard to gentiles that prohibit their bread, and their oil, and their wine, and their daughters are all one decree of the eighteen matters. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, as according to his opinion the Gemara already enumerated eighteen decrees. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the dispute remains with regard to the matter of vessels in the courtyard, they are only seventeen. The Gemara answers: There is also that statement of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, as Rav Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Sages issued a decree prohibiting eating their bread due to their oil. And they issued a decree prohibiting their oil due to their wine. Consequently, there are two separate decrees.
And similarly, the Sage Bali said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Bali: I will explain this ruling to you. When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was not referring to all matters. Rather, he spoke specifically with regard to the day before those dates concerning which Megillat Ta’anit said: Fasting is prohibited. However, with regard to those days on which it is prohibited to eulogize, he did not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that eulogizing on the following day is permitted.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
§ Having discussed the obligation to sequester the High Priest prior to Yom Kippur, the Gemara interprets the next matter in the mishna: The High Priest is removed from his house to the Chamber of Parhedrin. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: And was it called the Chamber of Parhedrin, the chamber for the annual royal appointees? Wasn’t it called the Chamber of Balvatei, the chamber for ministers and council heads?
Rather, initially, during the era of Shimon HaTzaddik and his colleagues, who were rewarded with long lives due to their righteousness, they would call it the Chamber of Balvatei, a term connoting significance, since it was a place designated for the High Priest. However, because people were giving money in order to be appointed to the High Priesthood, the position was filled by unworthy individuals. Due to their wickedness, they did not survive the year, and they were replaced every twelve months like the parhedrin who are replaced every twelve months. Therefore, the chamber was called disparagingly the Chamber of Parhedrin. Since the High Priest was replaced every year, the new appointee would renovate the chamber to reflect his own more elaborate tastes.
The Sage named Balvatei said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the requirement for the Levites to accompany the Temple offerings with song is derived from here: The verse states with regard to the Levites: “Every one that entered in to do the work of service” (Numbers 4:47). What is work that must be performed in conjunction with another service? You must say that this is song.
Regarding this, Rav Shemen, Shimon, bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Now, since the eighteen blessings of the Amida prayer and the other prayer formulas for prayer were instituted for Israel by the members of the Great Assembly just like all the other blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot; let us see where in the Amida prayer the members of the Great Assembly instituted to recite havdala.
The Gemara asks: If he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with her, what can be said? In that case the woman does not benefit from the intercourse. Rav Aḥai bar Adda of the place called Aḥa said: Who will tell us, i.e., it is not obvious, that there is no benefit for both of them, i.e., there is benefit only for the man, when they engage in intercourse in an atypical manner? And furthermore, it is written: “Lyings with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22). The plural form indicates that there are two ways of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman: In this manner the verse compares typical sexual intercourse to intercourse in an atypical manner.
The Gemara challenges: But each of these verses is necessary for itself, to teach that atonement is achieved for each of the sins through its respective sin offering. Rava said: Bar Adda Mari explained this matter to me: The verse states with regard to each of these sin offerings: “And the priest shall make atonement…and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35). This is atonement and this is forgiveness; they are one and the same. Since it would have sufficed to say: “And he shall be forgiven,” the superfluous mentions of the phrase: “And the priest shall make atonement,” serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.
The Gemara relates: Bar Adda the porter was transporting animals across the narrow bridge of Neresh when one animal pushed another and cast it into the water, and it drowned. The case came before Rav Pappa, who deemed him liable. Bar Adda said to him: What should I have done? Rav Pappa said to him: You should have transported them one by one. The porter said to him: Do you know of the son of your sister who can transport them one by one? In other words, are you aware of anyone who can do such a thing? It is virtually impossible. Rav Pappa said to him: The very earliest scholars before you already shouted and complained about this, but none paid attention to them. Since you are an expert and were hired for this purpose, the responsibility is yours.
The Gemara asks: Is it one quarter? It is one half. One thousand cubits is exactly half of the two thousand cubits incorporated into the boundary of the cities of the Levites. Rava said: Bar Adda the surveyor explained the calculation to me: You will find this in a city that is two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits. How many cubits is the extended boundary of the city itself, without the corners? Sixteen million square cubits. Squares measuring two thousand by two thousand cubits are appended to each of the four sides of the city. The area of each of these squares is four million square cubits, and the total area of all the additional squares is sixteen million square cubits. How many cubits are the corners? Sixteen million square cubits, as additional squares of two thousand by two thousand cubits are appended to the corners of the outer boundaries of the cities. Subtract eight million square cubits from the area of the extended boundary for the open space around the city; the first thousand cubits beyond the inhabited part of the city must be left as open space, which amounts to areas measuring one thousand by two thousand cubits on each of the four sides of the city, for a total of eight million square cubits. And subtract another four million square cubits from the corners, as sections of the corners are parallel to the open spaces. How much is the sum total of the area of the open spaces? Twelve million square cubits.
The Gemara relates a relevant incident. Bar Adi the Arab seized certain wineskins from Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, placed wine in them for an extended period of time, and then returned them to him. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came and asked in the study hall what course of action he should take. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: This is what Rabbi Ami instructed me to do in terms of practical halakha: One fills the skins with water for three days, so that the water will absorb the flavor of the wine, and then pours the water out. And Rava says: In addition, one must pour out the water in them every twenty-four-hour period and then refill them. Once this has been performed, the wineskins will be permitted.
The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree about the halakha. Rather, they were discussing different situations. This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to a case where there is another exit. When the Torah scroll is being taken out of one exit, people may leave through the other exit. However, that statement of Shmuel is referring to a case where there is no other exit, and therefore the congregation must wait until the Torah is carried out. Rava said: The Sage bar Ahina explained to me that this halakha is derived from the verse: “After the Lord your God you shall walk” (Deuteronomy 13:5), meaning that one must walk after the Torah scroll and not in front of it.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Bar Ahina explained this to me by citing a proof from the following verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), which teaches that betrothal that is given to consummation, i.e., betrothal when it is permitted for the man and woman to engage in intercourse, is a betrothal, but betrothal that is not given to consummation is not a valid betrothal, what is there to say? Since he uses this verse for a different purpose, from where does Rava derive that a woman can be betrothed through intercourse and that a Hebrew maidservant cannot be acquired in this manner?
§ It was stated that amora’im had a dispute: With regard to betrothal that is not given to consummation, Abaye says it is betrothal, since the prohibition against engaging in sexual intercourse does not affect the betrothal itself. Rava says: It is not betrothal. Rava says: The Sage bar Ahina explained to me that this halakha is derived from the verse: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), as it indicates that betrothal that is given to permitted consummation is betrothal, whereas betrothal that is not given to consummation is not betrothal.
Bar Avin, who was also a eulogizer, said to him: God forbid that the words hook and flame should be said with regard to the righteous, as these are not expressions of honor. Rav Ashi asked him: And what will you say? He said to him: I shall say: Cry for the mourners and not for that which was lost, as that which was lost, i.e., the soul of Ravina, has gone to its eternal rest, while we, the mourners, are left with our sighs.
Rav Ashi was offended by them, as their words of praise for Ravina might have been understood as a show of disrespect to Rav Ashi, since they likened Ravina to a cedar and the other Sages, Rav Ashi included, to hyssops of the wall. Due to Rav Ashi’s anger, their feet turned inward and became crooked. On that day when Ravina actually died, neither of them came to eulogize him. This is what Rav Ashi said using a metaphor to describe this incident: Neither bar Kippok can perform Ḥalitza, nor can bar Avin perform Ḥalitza, because their feet are crooked and so their shoes cannot be removed from their feet in the proper manner.
When Rava once came to the Tigris River, and he was concerned that he might be swept away by the water, he said to bar Avin: Rise and say a prayer on our behalf. He rose and said: Most of the third, a poetic reference to the Jewish people (Isaiah 19:24), has come in the water, implying that Rava was equal in importance to the majority of the Jewish people. Remember then and have mercy on us. Although we have strayed from you like an unfaithful woman strays from her husband, do not forsake and punish us like the sign of the bitter water, with which a woman suspected of adultery is tested. That is to say, do not punish us with water.
The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.
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 halakhais 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.
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.
The Gemara recounts: Two witnesses testified about bar Binittos. One said: He lent money with interest in my presence, and the other one said: He lent me money with interest. Rava rendered bar Binittos disqualified from bearing witness and from serving as a judge.
One day a troop [gunda] of Roman soldiers passed by there while a wedding was taking place and took the rooster and hen from them. The residents of the city fell upon them and beat them. The soldiers came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor then came against them in war. Among the residents of the King’s Mountain there was a certain man named bar Deroma who could jump the distance of a mil, and he killed many of the Romans, who were powerless to stand up against him. The emperor then took his crown and set it on the ground as a sign of mourning. He said: Master of the Universe, if it is pleasing to You, do not give over that man, a euphemism for himself, and his kingdom into the hands of only one man.
In the end it was the words issuing from his own mouth that caused bar Deroma to stumble, as he uttered this verse in complaint against God: “Have You not rejected us, O God, so that You go not forth, O God, with our hosts?” (Psalms 60:12). The Gemara asks: But did not David also say this? The Gemara answers: David uttered these words as a question, wondering whether they were true, whereas bar Deroma pronounced them as a statement of fact.
Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, what about a case where the debt is transferred to these members of the house of bar Elyashiv? As, those implacable people bind debtors with handcuffs and take their money immediately when the time for repayment arrives. They certainly would not add to the time that the borrower has to repay the first loan, and he would not willingly pledge himself to them. So too, will you say that they do not acquire the money in the presence of all three parties, as the borrower would not agree to this arrangement?
Abaye said to him: If that is so, for people such as those of the bar Elyashiv household, who are particular even with regard to one who goes on the boundary of their field, here too, will you say that presumptive ownership is established immediately, as soon as one makes use of their property without their lodging a protest? And if you would say that is indeed the halakha, if so, you have subjected your statement to the varying circumstances of each case, as there will be a different length of time needed to establish the presumption of ownership depending on who the prior owner is. This is untenable.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it true that for diluted wine a snake will not risk its life? But wasn’t Rabbi Yannai once in Bei Akhborei, and some say that it was bar Hadaya who was in Bei Akhborei, and others were sitting with him and drinking diluted wine. When they finished, they had some wine left in the container [bekhuva], and they covered it with a cloth. And then they saw a certain snake take water in its mouth and pour it through the cloth into the container until the liquid filled the container and the wine flowed over the cloth, and the snake drank the overflowing wine. This shows that a snake will risk its life to drink diluted wine.
The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya was an interpreter of dreams. For one who gave him a fee, he would interpret the dream favorably, and for one who did not give him a fee, he would interpret the dream unfavorably. The Gemara relates: There was an incident in which both Abaye and Rava saw an identical dream and they asked bar Haddaya to interpret it. Abaye gave him money and paid his fee, while Rava did not give him money. They said to him: The verse: “Your ox shall be slain before your eyes and you shall not eat thereof” (Deuteronomy 28:31) was read to us in our dream. He interpreted their dream and to Rava he said: Your business will be lost and you will derive no pleasure from eating because of the extreme sadness of your heart. To Abaye he said: Your business will profit and you will be unable to eat due to the joy in your heart.
§ The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya sought to bring a bill of divorce from one country to another. He came before Rabbi Aḥai, who was appointed over bills of divorce in his location to ask him how to proceed. Rabbi Aḥai said to him: You are required to stand over each and every letter when the scribe writes the bill of divorce, to see that everything is performed in the correct manner. Bar Haddaya came before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi to ask if this is required, and they said to him: You are not required to do this; rather, it is enough for you to be present and oversee in general that it is done in the proper manner.
The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.
As in that situation involving Rava and Rami bar Ḥama, when they would stand before Rav Ḥisda, after he taught them a halakhathey would quickly review the tradition that they heard from him together and only then analyze the rationale of the tradition that they had received. Apparently, in the study of Mishna and the amoraic commentary on the Mishna there is a distinction between extensive and intensive study.
The Gemara relates a similar discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said: If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee, and Shimon came and sold the field back to Reuven, but he sold it with a guarantee that if the field is repossessed, he will compensate the buyer for his loss,
Mar Zutra said: We said only that one must follow all these versions when he did not say the words: But we have sinned. However, if he said the words: But we have sinned, he need not say anything further because that is the essential part of the confession. As bar Hamdudei said: I was standing before Shmuel and he was sitting; and when the prayer leader reached the words: But we have sinned, Shmuel stood. Bar Hamdudei said: Learn from here that this is the main part of the confession, and Shmuel stood up to emphasize the significance of these words.
Mar bar Hamdurei said that Shmuel said: One who reached his hand into the innards of an animal on Shabbat and detached a fetus that was in its womb is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It does not make sense to consider the fetus as a full-fledged living creature. Rava said: Bar Hamdurei explained this to me. Didn’t Rav Sheshet say: One who detaches hops on Shabbat from the shrubs and thorns on which they are growing is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth? Here, too, in the case of the fetus, one is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Abaye said: One who detached
Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.
As the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: Severed white or sky-blue strings are fit, and similarly, severed hyssop branches are fit for sprinkling the water of purification mixed with the ashes of a red heifer. The Gemara asks: What measure do severed strings need to be in order to remain fit? Bar Hamduri says that Shmuel says: The strings must remain long enough to tie them in a slipknot.
The Gemara answers that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the following baraita: Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account for intercourse at two places. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Simai? Rava said: The Sage bar Hamedurei explained the matter to me, based on an allusion to this halakha found in the Bible. The verse states: “And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman [mishkevei isha]” (Leviticus 18:22). The phrase mishkevei isha, referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. Now, what male has two manners of lying? You must say that this is referring to a hermaphrodite, and the plural form mishkevei, meaning: Lyings, indicates that there is liability for both manners of intercourse with him.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree only in a case where they did not rely on it before Shabbat, but in a case where they did rely on it, all agree it is a valid side post? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as there was a certain balcony [barka] that was in the house of Bar Ḥavu that Abaye and Rava disagreed about their entire lives. The residents of the alleyway began relying on a pillar upon which the balcony rested as their side post. Since Abaye and Rava disagreed about this case, it is clear that their disagreement applies even when the residents had relied on the item as a side post from before Shabbat.
Ravina raises an objection from the mishna: If one found scrolls, he reads them once in thirty days; and if he does not know how to read, he rolls and unrolls them. Ravina infers: To roll and unroll them, yes, he may do so, but assess their value and place the money aside, no, he may not. Abaye said: There is a difference between phylacteries and scrolls. Phylacteries are available at the house of bar Ḥavu, where they are produced in large quantities, but scrolls are not available, as Torah scrolls are not easily obtained.
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who know the establishment of the month, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot even today. When bar Hedya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: That is not a practical question, as the seventh day does not coincide with Shabbat, since the Sages fixed the calendar to avoid that possibility. When Ravin and all those emissaries who descended to Babylonia, or who originally left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael and returned, came, they said: It does coincide with Shabbat, but it does not override Shabbat.
Abaye said to him: This is not a contradiction: The mishna is referring to garments made even of other types of materials; linen garments, however, may be laundered even when they serve other purposes. Bar Hedya said: I myself saw the Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee, to which basins full of linen garments were brought out to be laundered during the intermediate days of a Festival.
Bar Hedya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami, and he said: One washes until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location, the third joint. And do not say that Rabbi Ami acted this way only because he is a priest and acted stringently to avoid confusing teruma and non-sacred food. This cannot be, as Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, is a Levite, and yet he too said: Until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more stringent location.
The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: “Be numbered [lehimanot]” is apparently inappropriate. It should have said: Be filled. Rather, this verse is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus [manuhu] with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus, and therefore he missed his opportunity to join them in the performance of the mitzva.
The Gemara records another discussion between bar Hei Hei and Hillel. Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). There are two redundancies here: “The righteous” is the same as “he who serves God,” and “the wicked” is the same as “he who does not serve Him.” Hillel said to him: The one “who serves Him” and the one “who does not serve Him” are both referring to completely righteous people. But the verse is hinting at a distinction between them, as one who reviews his studies one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.
The Gemara relates that Elijah the Prophet said to bar Hei Hei, and some say that he said this to Rabbi Elazar: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction [oni]” (Isaiah 48:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought after all good character traits to impart them to the Jewish people, and He found only poverty [aniyut] capable of preventing them from sin. Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: This explains the folk saying that people say: Poverty is good for the Jewish people like a red bridle [barza] for a white horse. Just as a red bridle accentuates the white color of the horse, so the challenge of poverty draws out the purity of the Jewish people.
Rav Idi bar Avin said to him: This is indeed what we learned in the baraita of the school of Rav Hinak, and some say in the baraita of the school of bar Hinak, in accordance with your ruling. The Gemara asks: But if there is a baraita that states the same halakha, does Rav Huna merely come to teach us a baraita? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna taught the halakha quoted in the baraita because he had not heard the baraita. Rav Huna independently issued the same ruling as that of the baraita.
§ In connection to the above incident concerning the poverty of scholars and their potential to become wealthy through remarkable circumstances, the Gemara relates an incident: Rabbi Akiva became betrothed to the daughter of bar Kalba Savua. When bar Kalba Savua heard about their betrothal, he took a vow prohibiting her from eating all of his property. Despite this, she went ahead and married Rabbi Akiva.
Eventually he came back accompanied by 24,000 pairs of students. Everyone went out to greet him, as he was by then a renowned teacher, and she too arose to go out to greet him. That wicked person said to her: And to where are you going? As she was excessively poor, she was not dressed in a grand manner, as fit for the wife of one so esteemed. She said to him: “A righteous man regards the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10); he knows that I am in this state as a result of my dedication to him. She came to present herself before Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages tried to fend her off, as they were unaware of her identity. He said to them: Leave her. Both my Torah knowledge and yours are hers. When bar Kalba Savua heard that the famous man was his son-in-law, he came before halakhic authorities and requested the dissolution of his vow, and it was dissolved.
§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief” (Proverbs 28:14)? Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. The place known as the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [rispak].
The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza.
To conclude the story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gemara cites a baraita. It is taught: Rabbi Elazar says: Come and see how great is the power of shame, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, assisted bar Kamtza, who had been humiliated, and due to this humiliation and shame He destroyed His Temple and burned His Sanctuary.
Also, with regard to Abraham’s name, bar Kappara taught: Anyone who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name will be Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). This is a positive mitzva to refer to him as Abraham. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a negative mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name shall no longer be called Abram, and your name will be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5).
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s students and members of his household disputed: Does he completeShemalater or does he not complete it later? Bar Kappara says: He does not complete it later. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: He completes it later. Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Granted, according to my position, that I say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not completeShemalater, that is why when he taught, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would specifically seek a topic that included the exodus from Egypt, as by so doing he fulfills the mitzva to remember the Exodus; a mitzva that others fulfill in their recitation of the last paragraph of Shema. But according to you, who says that he completes his recitation of Shemalater, why, when he teaches, would he specifically seek a topic that included the exodus from Egypt?
On this note, the Gemara relates that Bar Kappara would tie them in his bed curtain and project their bulge outward. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, would place them on a bench and spread a cloth over them.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yehuda bar Kaza teaches in a baraita of the school of bar Kaza: If the widow demanded payment of her marriage contract,
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
Rav Ashi said: According to what Ameimar said, bar Uva cannot perform Ḥalitza and bar Kipof cannot perform Ḥalitza, as these two, who were famous eulogizers in Rav Ashi’s generation, had feet that became so crooked that they were unable to walk normally.
The Gemara relates that prior to Ravina’s death, Rav Ashi said to bar Kippok, who was a famous eulogizer: On that day when Ravina will die, what will you say? He said to him: I shall begin my eulogy and say as follows: If the cedars went up in flame, what shall the hyssop of the wall do? If the leviathan was lifted by a hook, what shall the tiny fish of the marsh do? If dryness overtook a flowing river, what can the water of the puddles do?
Rav Ashi was offended by them, as their words of praise for Ravina might have been understood as a show of disrespect to Rav Ashi, since they likened Ravina to a cedar and the other Sages, Rav Ashi included, to hyssops of the wall. Due to Rav Ashi’s anger, their feet turned inward and became crooked. On that day when Ravina actually died, neither of them came to eulogize him. This is what Rav Ashi said using a metaphor to describe this incident: Neither bar Kippok can perform Ḥalitza, nor can bar Avin perform Ḥalitza, because their feet are crooked and so their shoes cannot be removed from their feet in the proper manner.
Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta, Ma’aser Sheni 1:6): One cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto coins that are not in circulation. How so? If one had coins of bar Kokheva [Kozeviyyot], coins of Jerusalem, or coins of earlier kings, all of which are no longer in use, one cannot desacralize second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. Rava infers: But if one had coins of later, i.e., current, kings, that are similar to the coins of the earlier kings in that they have been invalidated in his location, since they are still valid elsewhere, one can desacralize the second-tithe produce by transferring its sanctity onto them. The baraita does not make a distinction as to whether the owner of the produce intends to travel to the location where those coins are in use or not.
The Gemara relates: Bar Koziva, i.e., bar Kokheva, ruled for two and a half years. He said to the Sages: I am the Messiah. They said to him: With regard to the Messiah it is written that he is able to smell and judge, so let us see ourselves whether he, bar Kokheva, is able to smell and judge. Once they saw that he was not able to smell and judge, the gentiles killed him.
Rather, the first, great, Hasmonean monarchy ruled seventy years. The second kingdom, of Herod and his descendants, ruled fifty-two years, and the duration of the monarchy of bar Koziva, or bar Kokheva, was two and a half years. The duration of the exile that follows is unknown.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went to the Messiah. He said to the Messiah: Greetings to you, my rabbi and my teacher. The Messiah said to him: Greetings to you, bar Leva’i. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When will the Master come? The Messiah said to him: Today. Sometime later, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi came to Elijah. Elijah said to him: What did the Messiah say to you? He said to Elijah that the Messiah said: Greetings [shalom] to you, bar Leva’i. Elijah said to him: He thereby guaranteed that you and your father will enter the World-to-Come, as he greeted you with shalom. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: The Messiah lied to me, as he said to me: I am coming today, and he did not come. Elijah said to him that this is what he said to you: He said that he will come “today, if you will listen to his voice” (Psalms 95:7).
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Shimon derive that these halakhot apply to a tumtum and a hermaphrodite? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which bar Livai teaches, as bar Livai teaches a baraita that discusses the verse: “And when the days of her purity are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter” (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse uses the terms “son” and “daughter,” rather than male and female, it is derived from the term “for a son” that these halakhot apply to a son in any case, even if his masculinity is not definite. Similarly, the term “for a daughter” teaches that these halakhot apply to a daughter in any case, even if her femininity is not definite.
Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva’ei was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva’ei said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel’s eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.
The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still exists among the prominent families of Rome, and that family is called: The family of bar Luyyanus.
The baraita with regard to Grace after Meals continues: I only have a Torah source for Grace after Meals. From where is the obligation to recite the blessing of the Torah derived? Several answers are offered: Rabbi Yishmael said: It is derived through an a fortiori inference from Grace after Meals: Over food, which is an aspect of temporal life, one recites a blessing, all the more so one recites a blessing over the Torah, which is eternal life. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Naḥmani, the student of Rabbi Yishmael, says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Thisa fortiori inference is not necessary, as this halakha can be derived from the same verse from which Grace after Meals is derived, as it states: “For the good land that He gave [natan] you,” and below, with regard to the Torah, it says: “And I will give [ve’etna] you the stone tablets, and the Torah and the mitzva, which I have written, that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12). Here, just as giving with regard to the good land requires a blessing, giving with regard to the Torah requires a blessing.
On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of terumaat the threshing floor? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, as he understood that on the previous occasion, Rabbi Elazar was citing verbatim a ruling that he heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappaḥa, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yoḥanan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.
The Gemara relates: On another occasion, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan and an incident similar to this one came before them for judgment. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? When Reish Lakish heard Rabbi Yoḥanan respond in a manner identical to the earlier response of Rabbi Elazar, he turned his head and glared angrily at Rabbi Elazar, and he said to him: You heard this matter from bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, and you did not say it to me in his name? Had I known that you were stating Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion I would have accepted it.
Rabbi Ḥana the money changer said: Bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.
So too, the Angel of Death appeared to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: Give me thirty days so that I may review my studies, for you say above: Fortunate is he who comes here to Heaven with his learning in his hand. On the thirtieth day the Angel of Death came to take him. Rav Ashi said to the Angel of Death: What is all of this? Why are you in such a hurry to take me? Why can you not postpone my death? He said to him: The foot of Rav Huna bar Natan is pushing you, as he is ready to succeed you as the leader of the generation, and one sovereignty does not overlap with its counterpart, even by one hairbreadth. Therefore, you cannot live any longer.
§ The mishna states that if he said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, they are not subject to the possibility of redemption. The Gemara asks: And are they not subject to redemption forever? Bar Padda said: If he redeemed them, they become consecrated again, as they have not yet been cut down. If he redeemed them again, they become consecrated again, until they are cut down. Once they are cut down, he redeems them once and it is sufficient. And Ulla said: Once they are cut down one does not need to redeem them again because they are no longer consecrated.
The Gemara proposes: Let us say that this baraitashould be a conclusive refutation of bar Padda, who said: Sanctity does not depart with nothing being done and the trees require redemption, while the baraita demonstrates that even inherent sanctity lapses on its own?
Rav Pappa said: Bar Padda could have said to you: This is what the baraitais saying: If one says: This ox, after thirty days, is a burnt-offering, then if he does not say: From now it is a peace-offering, then after thirty days it is a burnt-offering. But when he adds: From now it is a peace-offering, the sanctity of a peace-offering takes effect upon it and does not depart with nothing being done.
With regard to this matter, the Gemara relates that bar Kappara said to bar Pedat: My sister’s son, look into the topic of the question that you will ask me tomorrow in the study hall. The question involved the interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement: Any sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness to the priests. Was it fitness of slaughtering that we learned, i.e., provided that it was slaughtered properly, even if the offering was later disqualified, it is no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse.
GEMARA: A man known as bar Peyoli was standing before Shmuel and was removing the sciatic nerve from the leg of an animal. He was cutting out the nerve without scraping away the surrounding flesh, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel said to him: Go down further and scrape away the flesh in order to remove the entire nerve. Now, if I would not have seen you and instructed you in the process of removing the sciatic nerve, you would have fed me forbidden meat.
Rav Sheshet said in explanation of this incident: That which bar Peyoli removed was the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Based upon this statement, one can derive by inference that he left behind the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove by rabbinic law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But if so, in accordance with whose opinion did the person who taught him how to remove the sciatic nerve teach him? Even according to Rabbi Yehuda he would have transgressed a rabbinic prohibition.
Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That which bar Peyoli removed was the section of the sciatic nerve that is forbidden by Torah law. And that which he left over is forbidden by rabbinic law according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as explained above (92b) in a baraita; as if one were to follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the section that bar Peyoli left over is permitted even by rabbinic law.
The Gemara cites a proof for this: This is just as it is in the case concerning the property of a man named Bar Shatya, who was referred to by this name because he would occasionally go insane. The case is as follows: Bar Shatya sold property. Two witnesses came forward and said that he sold it when he was healthy and therefore the sale was valid. And two others came forward and said that he sold it when he was insane, and so the sale was void. Rav Ashi said with regard to this matter: Place two witnesses against two witnesses and let the testimonies cancel each other out. As there is no valid testimony to rely on,
let the land remain in the possession of Bar Shatya. Since no substantiated proof was brought forth, the land remains in the hands of its current possessor. As such, the same should be true with regard to cases of betrothal and divorce whose status is uncertain; the woman should remain in her former presumptive status.
Rather, Rav Naḥman said in the case where the testimony of the first witnesses is contradicted not in their presence, the ruling is: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict their testimony, thereby neutralizing both testimonies, and establish the money in the possession of its owner, just as it was in the case of the property of bar Shatya. As when bar Shatya, a man who suffered from periodic bouts of insanity, sold his property, two witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was insane; and two other witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was sane.
The Gemara relates: Rava brought a gift to a minister named bar Sheshakh on their festival day. Rava said: I know of him that he does not worship idols. Rava went to him and found him sitting up to his neck in rose water, and naked prostitutes were standing before him. Bar Sheshakh said to him: Do you have anything as fine as this in the World-to-Come? Rava said to him: Ours is better than this. Bar Sheshakh said to him: Is there anything finer than this? Rava said to him: You have the fear of the government upon you; we will not have the fear of the government upon us in the World-to-Come. Bar Sheshakh said to him: As for me, in any event, what fear of the government is there upon me? I am a powerful man.
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
To be saved from the demon of the bathroom, let him recite as follows: On the head of a lion and on the nose of a lioness we found the demon named bar Shirika Panda. With a bed of leeks I felled him, and with the jaw of the donkey I struck him.
who said to another: I am hereby selling to you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin. There was a certain parcel of land that was called: Of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This parcel of land that I own is not actually of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and it is not included in the sale. They came before Rav Naḥman for judgment, and he established the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is this the halakha? Isn’t the halakha that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and the land should remain in the possession of the seller?
The contradiction between one statement of Rav Naḥman and the other statement of Rav Naḥman is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that the parcel under dispute is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be any different from a case where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn’t we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established in the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.
§ There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling to you all of the property that I own of bar Sisin. There was one parcel of land that was called the tract of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This latter parcel of land is actually not the property of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and therefore it is not included in the sale.
To be saved from a demon, let him recite as follows: You were stopped up, stopped up you were. Cursed, broken, and excommunicated be the demon called bar Tit bar Tamei bar Tina as Shamgaz, Merigaz, and Istemai.
Rather, Reish Lakish said in the name of the Sage bar Ta’utni: What are we dealing with here, where one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of two categories? We are dealing with a case in which he ate the forbidden fat from two dishes, i.e., where each part was prepared in a different manner, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that dishes serve to separate the acts of eating. One who eats forbidden food from two different dishes in the course of a single lapse of awareness is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions and is liable to bring a sin offering for each one.
To be saved from a demon, let him recite as follows: You were stopped up, stopped up you were. Cursed, broken, and excommunicated be the demon called bar Tit bar Tamei bar Tina as Shamgaz, Merigaz, and Istemai.
To be saved from a demon, let him recite as follows: You were stopped up, stopped up you were. Cursed, broken, and excommunicated be the demon called bar Tit bar Tamei bar Tina as Shamgaz, Merigaz, and Istemai.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The ruling that if one ate two halves of an olive-bulk of one type of food he is liable to bring a sin offering is obvious, as he ate an olive-bulk of a forbidden food. Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutini: This is referring to a case where he ate them from two dishes, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that eating food from distinct dishes differentiates his acts of consumption and renders them separate transgressions.
There are those who say that this discussion referred to the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness, if they were from two types of food, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as he did not eat an entire olive-bulk of one type? Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutini: The mishna is referring to a case where he ate an olive-bulk of one type, but he ate it in two dishes, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that eating food from separate dishes differentiates his acts of consumption and renders them separate transgressions.
And we discussed this mishna: When we learned of one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type, was it necessary to say that he is liable? That is obvious. And Reish Lakish said in the name of the Sage, bar Tutni: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes, where each half was prepared separately, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. One who eats two olive-bulks of prohibited food that was prepared in two different dishes in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each one. Lest you say that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture, and therefore one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes would be exempt, the mishna teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua did not state his opinion as a leniency. He stated his opinion as a stricture.
But here, where they are separate with regard to the number of sin-offerings, i.e., according to Rabbi Yehoshua one who eats an olive-bulk from each of the two dishes is liable to bring two sin-offerings, and, nevertheless, the two halves of an olive-bulk from the two dishes join together and constitute a full measure and render him liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Master taught Reish Lakish’s response with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and it is difficult for him. We taught Reish Lakish’s response with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, and it is not difficult for us. When we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: One who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two types, was it necessary to say that he is exempt? That is obvious. Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutni: Actually, it is referring even to a case where the prohibition was from one type of food. And why then does the mishna call it two types? Because he eats it in the two separate dishes in which it was prepared. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. And this teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution based upon the following case: The properties of the house of bar Tzartzur were few, i.e., there was no surplus beyond his wives’ marriage settlements, and they appreciated. The sons of the two wives came before Rav Amram to discuss the matter. He said to the sons of the wife who had the more valuable marriage contract: Go appease the sons of the other wife and give them some of your share. They did not heed his advice.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited to dig circular ditches on the intermediate days of the Festival? Didn’t Rav Yehuda permit the family of bar Tzitai to construct circular ditches for their vineyards on the intermediate days of a Festival? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This source, i.e., the mishna that renders the practice prohibited, is referring to digging new ditches. That other source, i.e., Rav Yehuda’s ruling that permits the digging of such ditches, is referring to old ones, which merely need to be cleared.
Rav Ashi said: According to what Ameimar said, bar Uva cannot perform Ḥalitza and bar Kipof cannot perform Ḥalitza, as these two, who were famous eulogizers in Rav Ashi’s generation, had feet that became so crooked that they were unable to walk normally.
Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: The contradiction between the halakha with regard to smearing oil during the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakha with regard to placing manure during the intermediate days of the Festival poses a difficulty for Rabba bar Yirmeya. Since the purpose of this action is to preserve the tree, and the purpose of that action is to preserve the tree, what is different in this case that it is permitted, and what is different in that case that it is prohibited? This is the reason that Rabba bar Yirmeya said to him: There is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.
Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai and his son, Rabbi Elazar, went and hid in the study hall. Every day Rabbi Shimon’s wife would bring them bread and a jug of water and they would eat. When the decree intensified, Rabbi Shimon said to his son: Women are easily impressionable and, therefore, there is room for concern lest the authorities torture her and she reveal our whereabouts. They went and they hid in a cave. A miracle occurred and a carob tree was created for them as well as a spring of water. They would remove their clothes and sit covered in sand up to their necks. They would study Torah all day in that manner. At the time of prayer, they would dress, cover themselves, and pray, and they would again remove their clothes afterward so that they would not become tattered. They sat in the cave for twelve years. Elijah the Prophet came and stood at the entrance to the cave and said: Who will inform bar Yoḥai that the emperor died and his decree has been abrogated?
The Gemara asks: Even if we claim that the measure for impure foods is an egg-bulk, one could say it is referring to the giant egg-bulk of the bird called bar yokhani. The Gemara answers: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. This means that in a case of doubt, take the smaller number, as it is included in the larger number. Therefore, the correct measure is the volume of a chicken egg. The Gemara questions this: If so, say it is referring to a very small bird’s egg. Consequently, no proof can be brought from the verse that the volume of a chicken egg is the measure for ritual impurity.
of a bird called bar Yokhani, whose face is significantly larger than a handbreadth? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If you grasped many, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped few, you grasped something. The Gemara asks: If so, say that it is like the face of a bird, which is extremely small? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Rav Huna derives that the thickness of the Ark cover was one handbreadth not through an actual comparison to the real faces of different creatures but rather by means of a verbal analogy between the terms penei and penei written in different places in the Torah. It is written here: “Before [penei] the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), and it is written there: “From the presence of [penei] Isaac his father” (Genesis 27:30). The dimension of the Ark cover is like that of the face of a person, a handbreadth.
Rabbi Yishmael ben Satriel also testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Once an egg of the bird called bar yokhani fell, and the contents of the egg drowned sixty cities and broke three hundred cedar trees. The Gemara asks: And does the bar yokhani bird throw its eggs to the ground? But isn’t it written: “The kenaf renanim bird rejoices, but are her wings and feathers those of the stork? For she leaves her eggs on the earth, and warms them in dust” (Job 39:13–14)? The Sages understood that kenaf renanim is another name for the bar yokhani bird. If so, how could its egg fall if it lays its eggs on the ground? Rav Ashi said in explanation: That egg was unfertilized, and since it would never hatch the bird threw it to the ground.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says that a Sage named Bardela teaches: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “his impurity” written here, and the term “his impurity” written there. Here, with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, it is written: “And his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised,” and there, with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple, it is written: “He shall be impure, his impurity is yet upon him” (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to a ritually impure person who entered the Sanctuary, there is a punishment and there is a prohibition, as noted earlier, so too here, with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, it is derived that there is a punishment and there is a prohibition.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sage Bardela teaches that this prohibition is derived from a verbal analogy of the term “his impu-rity [tumato]” written with regard to one who eats sacrificial meat while impure (Leviticus 7:20), and the term “his impurity [tumato]” written with regard to one who enters the Temple while impure (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to entering the Temple while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karetand also explicitly prohibited doing so, so too here, with regard to eating sacrificial meat while impure, the Torah prescribed the punishment of karetand also explicitly prohibited doing so. Clearly, Reish Lakish understood this verse as referring to eating sacrificial meat, not merely touching it.
Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: “Every consecrated item she shall not touch,” without limiting the prohibition to a specific time, indicating that it is no different if one eats the sacrificial meat prior to sprinkling the blood, and it is no different if one does so after sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged, as the Sage Bardela teaches that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited before, as the verse states “his impurity” with regard to an impure person who eats sacrificial food, and states “his impurity” with regard to an impure person entering the Temple. And when “his impurity” is written, it is with regard to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood (see Leviticus 7:20).
Rabbi Abbahu states a different opinion: For example, enough to write the name Barukh ben Levi on one line. Barukh contains a final khaf, and Levi contains a lamed. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Abbahu maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of one written line with two interlinear spaces, one above the line and one beneath the line.
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda, an important personage of the house of the Exilarch, and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king’s servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
On that day, when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai’s view, Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel, and they sought to establish the halakha in this regard in accordance with their opinion. But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter. And he sent for
In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava, intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta.
A certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name. He said to them: This is the tradition that I received from Shammai the Elder: Egg white on a bedsheet contracts and hardens when heated by fire, whereas semen is absorbed into the sheet by the fire. They checked the matter and found in accordance with his statement that the substance on the sheet was not semen but egg white. They then brought the husband to court, administered lashes to him, and made him pay his wife’s marriage contract in full.
The Gemara asks: Even if the witnesses retracted their testimony, what of it? It is still clear that the condemned man is to be executed, as the halakha is that once a witness has stated his testimony, he may not then state a revision of that testimony. In other words, a witness’s retraction of his testimony has no validity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony and gave an explanation for having lied in their initial statement. This is like that incident involving Ba’aya the tax collector, where it was discovered that witnesses had falsely accused the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Shata? in revenge for the son’s having sentenced to death for sorcery the witnesses’ relatives.
§ The mishna continues: And furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer said that one who did not eat a meal on the evening of the first day of the Festival should compensate with a meal on the evening of the last day of the Festival. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say that a person is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukka, one during the day and one at night? However, the compensatory meal on the evening of the Eighth Day of Assembly is not eaten in the sukka. Beira said that Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his previous statement and agrees with the Rabbis that there is no quota for the meals that one must eat in the sukka, and it is only the meal on the first evening of the Festival that one must eat in the sukka. Their dispute is with regard to compensation if one failed to eat the meal on the first evening.
Abaye said: We too learn in the mishna (Eduyyot 8:7): There was a family known as Beit HaTzerifa in Transjordan, and a person called ben Tziyyon forcefully distanced it and proclaimed that its lineage was flawed, although its lineage was unflawed. There was another one that ben Tziyyon forcefully drew near, although its lineage was flawed. The mishna adds: Known families such as these, Elijah comes to declare impure and to declare pure, to distance and to draw near. Abaye continues: When the mishna states: Such as these, it means those whose status we know. But a family that has become assimilated, whose flawed lineage is unknown to the public, has already become assimilated, and not even Elijah will publicize its flaw.
And Beit Hillel say: Every person recitesShemaas he is, and he may do so in whatever position is most comfortable for him, both day and night, as it is stated: “And when you walk along the way,” when one is neither standing nor reclining (Me’iri).
The Sages said to him: You deserved to be in a position where you were liable to pay with your life, as you transgressed the statement of Beit Hillel. This statement will be explained in the Gemara.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Granted, Beit Hillel explain the rationale for their opinion and the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Beit Hillel explain both the verse that ostensibly supports Beit Shammai’s opinion: When you lie down, at the time when people lie down, etc., and the verse that proves that their own explanation is more reasonable: “And when you walk along the way.” However, what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?
However, I shall testify to you about two great families that were in Jerusalem, the Beit Tzevo’im family who came from the town of Ben Akhmai, and the Beit Kofai family from the town of Ben Mekoshesh: They were the descendants of rival wives who married others, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and from them came High Priests who served on the altar. Accordingly, I can testify that this was the accepted halakhic practice throughout the generations.
MISHNA: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the proper way to recite Shema. Beit Shammai say: One should recite Shema in the manner indicated in the text of Shema itself. Therefore, in the evening every person must recline on his side and recite Shema, in fulfillment of the verse: “When you lie down,” and in the morning he must stand and recite Shema, in fulfillment of the verse: When you rise, as it is stated: “When you lie down, and when you rise.”
With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Tarfon said: Once, I was coming on the road when I stopped and reclined to reciteShemain accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. Although Rabbi Tarfon was a disciple of Beit Hillel, he thought that fulfilling the mitzva in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai would be a more meticulous fulfillment of the mitzva, acceptable to all opinions. Yet in so doing, I endangered myself due to the highwaymen [listim] who accost travelers.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Granted, Beit Hillel explain the rationale for their opinion and the rationale for Beit Shammai’s opinion. Beit Hillel explain both the verse that ostensibly supports Beit Shammai’s opinion: When you lie down, at the time when people lie down, etc., and the verse that proves that their own explanation is more reasonable: “And when you walk along the way.” However, what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not state their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?
However, I shall testify to you about two great families that were in Jerusalem, the Beit Tzevo’im family who came from the town of Ben Akhmai, and the Beit Kofai family from the town of Ben Mekoshesh: They were the descendants of rival wives who married others, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and from them came High Priests who served on the altar. Accordingly, I can testify that this was the accepted halakhic practice throughout the generations.
Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preempted her and immersed before her own immersion for her own conversion. And the details of the incident came before the Sages, and they said: The slaves acquired themselves and became freemen. Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita poses a challenge: The baraita implies that only because the slaves immersed before her, while she was still a gentile, that yes, they became freemen; however, had they immersed after her, i.e., after she had already converted, then no, they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.
§ The mishna teaches that although the firstborn and animal tithe offerings should not be brought from outside Eretz Yisrael ab initio, if they came unblemished, they may be sacrificed. With regard to this issue, the Gemara raises a contradiction: There was an incident where ben Antigonus brought up firstborn animals from Babylonia in order to sacrifice them and they did not accept them in the Temple. Rav Ḥisda said: That is not difficult: This statement in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while this case of ben Antigonus is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
MISHNA 3:7 From Jericho the people would hear the sound indicating that the large gate had been opened. From Jericho the people would hear the sound produced in the Temple by the instrument that had the form of a shovel. From Jericho the people would hear the sound of the song of the Levites in the Temple. From Jericho the people would hear the sound of ben Arza clashing the cymbals in the Temple. From Jericho the people would hear the sound of the flute that was played in the Temple twelve days each year.
The priests with the trumpets came and stood near ben Arza, the title given to the person who was tasked with striking the cymbals, one to his right and one to his left. Then the High Priest stooped to pour the libation, and the Deputy waved the cloths, and ben Arza struck the cymbals, and the Levites recited the psalm of that day of the week. Each psalm was divided into three sections. Whenever the Levites reached the end of one section of the psalm, the priests sounded a tekia, and the people in the courtyard prostrated themselves. At the end of each section there was a tekia, and for every tekia there was a prostration. That is the procedure for the sacrifice of the daily offering in the service of the House of our God; may it be His will that it will be speedily rebuilt in our day, amen.
The Gemara discusses the matter of the baraitaitself. It was taught in the baraita: One who watches over the deceased, even though it is not his dead relative, is exempt from the recitation of Shema, from the Amidaprayer and from phylacteries, and from all mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. The baraita continues: If two individuals were watching over the deceased, this one watches and that one recitesShema, and then that one watches and this one recitesShema. Ben Azzai says: If they were traveling with the deceased on a boat, they are permitted to set the deceased down in this corner of the boat and both pray in another corner of the boat.
And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, ben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that was to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20), so too a sorceress is executed by stoning.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, that is sufficient to render him ritually pure and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: Naḥum of Gam Zo whispered this halakha to Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to his student ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students publicly in the marketplace. Two amora’im in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. One taught: Ben Azzai taught it to his students in the market. And the other taught: Ben Azzai also whispered it to his students.
The Gemara asks: But if something may not be bought with second-tithe money, is one permitted to buy it by including it in the payment for something which may be bought with second-tithe money? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so it was taught in the following baraita: Ben Bag Bag says in exposition of the verse: “And you shall bestow that money on all that your heart desires, on oxen, on sheep, on wine, on strong drink, on whatever your soul requests” (Deuteronomy 14:26): “On oxen” teaches that one may buy an ox and include in its price payment for its hide. Although the hide cannot be eaten, it may be bought together with the ox, and it does not acquire the sanctity of the second tithe. “On sheep” teaches that one may buy a sheep and include in its price payment for its fleece, which is used for purposes other than eating. “On wine” teaches that one may buy wine and include in its price payment for its jug. “On strong drink” teaches that one is permitted to buy not only actual wine, but one may buy even mead, water in which grape seeds are soaked, once it has fermented and acquired the flavor of wine.
Having cited ben Bag Bag’s exposition of the verse, the Gemara continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever interprets the words “on oxen” for me in accordance with the opinion of ben Bag Bag, I will carry his clothes after him into the bathhouse, i.e., I will honor him to such an extent that I will be prepared to treat him as a servant treats his master.
And since the Torah writes “on sheep,” teaching that a sheep may be bought with second-tithe money even together with its fleece, why do I need the words “on oxen”? These words are now entirely superfluous. If a sheep may be bought together with its fleece, is it necessary to state that an ox may be bought together with its hide? This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he said: Whoever interprets the words “on oxen” for me in accordance with the opinion of ben Bag Bag, I will carry his clothes after him into the bathhouse.
Apropos this discussion, Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: When we learned in a mishna that ben Beivai was in charge of the pakia, I would say that it means that he was in charge of producing wicks, as we learned in another mishna: They would tear [mafkia] strips from the priests’ worn-out trousers and belts and make wicks out of them, with which they lit the lamps for the Celebration of Drawing Water. But once I heard that which is taught in the previously cited baraita: And moreover, he is punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the pakia, I now say: What is a pakia? It is lashes. Ben Beivai was in charge of corporal punishment in the Temple.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: And with regard to that which we learned in a mishna that it is prohibited to sell work animals to gentiles, to prevent a situation where animals still belonging to a Jew would be lent to a gentile who would perform labor with them on Shabbat, but ben Beteira permits selling a horse to a gentile. And it was taught in a baraita: Ben Beteira permits selling a horse for riding because the horse is performing an act for which one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, as riding a horse is not actually a prohibited labor. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one, the same, thing. They both hold that an animal with a rider on its back is not considered to be bearing a burden. And if you say that the Rabbis only argue with Rabbi Natan with regard to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say specifically that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan agree? Didn’t you say that in the case of a person riding a horse even the Rabbis agree? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said the same thing, he was referring to a horse designated specifically for carrying fowl. The Gemara asks: And is there a horse designated for carrying fowl? The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the horse for carrying a hunter’s falcons [devei vayadan].
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And Rabbi Natan agrees in the case of a person who is bound because he is unable to lighten the load of the person carrying him. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Abaye: And what of those Persians who are considered as if they were bound because they don heavy armor and always ride horses, and nevertheless Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira and Rabbi Natan said one thing and permitted selling horses even to Persians? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the Persians, it is not that they are unable to dismount their horses. It is arrogance that keeps them from dismounting their horses. As proof, the Gemara relates: There was that Persian officer [pardashka] at whom the king was angry, and he ran three parasangs on foot. Apparently, even Persian horsemen are not considered bound and are capable of walking without their horses.
MISHNA:One may rescue the casing of a Torah scroll from a fire on Shabbat together with the Torah scroll, and the casing of phylacteries along with the phylacteries, even if they have money inside them. And to where may one rescue them? Into an alley that is closed, which, if it is surrounded on three sides, is considered to be a private domain by Torah law. Ben Beteira says: Even into an open alley.
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, says: The initial understanding of Shmuel’s interpretation of the mishna is correct, i.e., that the ordinance of the court permitted the priests to salt their offerings; and the ruling of the mishna is necessary only according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, who holds that priests are not obligated to contribute a yearly half-shekel to purchase the communal supplies.
As we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case; rather, any priest who does not contribute his shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.
The Gemara clarifies: But according to the opinion of ben Bukhri, why is a priest who contributes a half-shekel not considered a sinner? Since he is not obligated to bring it ab initio, when he brings the half-shekel he is also a sinner, since he is causing the bringing of a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard. He is not contributing the half-shekel as part of the communal offering, as he is exempt from this obligation. Therefore, his donation is the donation of an individual, and a communal offering cannot be brought on behalf of an individual. His donation should disqualify all offerings brought from the communal funds. The Gemara answers: The priest brings and transfers the half-shekel to the community, so it is considered part of the communal funds.
The Gemara relates a story with regard to a Sage who interpreted dreams, Rabbi Yishmael. Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, asked his uncle, Rabbi Yishmael: I saw in a dream that my two cheeks fell off. What does my dream mean? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Two Roman battalions spoke ill of you, and they died. Cheeks symbolize a mouth that speaks evil.
The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya’akov of the village of Sekhanya, who was a heretic, a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene, came to treat him, but Rabbi Yishmael did not let him do so. And ben Dama said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him treat me, and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah to prove that accepting medical treatment from a heretic is permitted in this situation. But ben Dama did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed from his body and he died.
Rabbi Yishmael recited with regard to him: Fortunate are you, ben Dama, as your body is pure and your soul departed in purity, and you did not transgress the statement of your colleagues, who would state the verse: “And who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8), i.e., one is punished for ignoring an ordinance of the Sages. This incident indicates that it is not permitted for one to accept medical treatment from a heretic even if it is clear that without it he will live only a short while.
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any item that has been cooked like the food of ben Derosai, i.e., partially cooked so that it is just about edible, is not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles? Consequently, if it is not cooked like the food of ben Derosai, it is subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles. Accordingly, meat whose cooking was expedited by a gentile ought to be prohibited, as this ruling includes cases where it had not been cooked like the food of ben Derosai at the time of the gentile’s intervention.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where if he does not turn over the meat it would cook on one side only partially, roughly one-third of the ordinary process of cooking, like the food of ben Derosai. And now that he turns it over, it cooks on both sides like the food of ben Derosai. And Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that any meat roasted on only one side like the food of ben Derosai is nothing, i.e., this is not a violation of the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat. If it was roasted on both sides like the food of ben Derosai this is classified as cooking, and he is liable for cooking on Shabbat.
§ We learned in the mishna: A woman who was imprisoned because of a capital offense is forbidden to her husband. Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wives of thieves are involved, as when thieves were apprehended and hanged, their wives were abandoned and made available to all, and they were not protected from potential rapists. And Levi said: The mishna is referring to a case where the wife of ben Donai, a murderer, is involved, as in that case the government abandons his wife and makes her available to all, which is not the case when one is condemned for theft. Ḥizkiyya said: And this abandonment is only in a case where the husbands were sentenced to death. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Although their husbands were not sentenced to death, if the imprisonment is because of a capital offense, the women are abandoned and available to all.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may only roast meat and other food items if there remains sufficient time so that they could be roasted while it is still day. The Gemara asks: And how much do they need to be roasted in order to be considered sufficient, so that it will be permitted to complete their cooking afterward? Rabbi Elazar said that Rav said: So that they will be roasted while it is still day like the food of ben Drosai, which was partially roasted. Ben Drosai was a robber and pursued by all. He could not wait for his food to roast completely, so he sufficed with a partial roasting. It was also stated by another of the Sages, as Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anything that is already cooked like the food of ben Drosai by a Jew, no longer has a problem of the cooking of gentiles. If a gentile completed cooking this food, it is, nevertheless, permitted to eat, even though, as a rule, it is prohibited to eat food cooked by gentiles. It was taught in a baraita, Ḥananya says: With regard to anything that is already cooked like the food of ben Drosai, it is permitted to keep it on the stove on Shabbat and even though this stove is not swept of coals and the burning coals are not covered with ashes. Since the food was already cooked to that extent, there is no concern that he will come to stoke the coals.
GEMARA: The students raised a dilemma with regard to the explanation of the mishna. That which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, does it mean that one may not return a pot that he took off the fire and wishes to return on Shabbat; however, to leave the pot from Shabbat eve into Shabbat, one may leave it even though this stove is not swept of its coals and its coals are not covered with ashes? And, according to this, whose opinion is it in this mishna? It is the opinion of Ḥananya. As it was taught in a baraita, Ḥananya says: Any food that has already been cooked to the extent of the food of ben Drosai, who would only cook his food the minimum amount necessary, one is permitted to leave it atop a stove on Shabbat even though the stove is not swept and not covered with ashes. Or perhaps, that which we learned in the mishna: One may not place, means one may not leave it on the fire from Shabbat eve. And if the coals in the stove were swept or covered with ashes, yes, one may leave the pot on the stove. And if not, no, one may not leave it, and all the more so one may not return it to the stove on Shabbat under any circumstances.
Rather, that explanation is rejected and the Gemara says: Actually the mishna is referring to adjacent to minḥa gedola, and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is dealing with adjacent to minḥa ketana. In response to the question: If the mishna means adjacent to minḥa gedola isn’t there significant time remaining in the day? The Gemara explains that each of the activities enumerated in the mishna is performed in an especially time-consuming manner. When the mishna said: A person may not sit before the barber, it was referring to a haircut of ben Elasa, whose haircut was very complicated and required several hours to complete. When the mishna said: A person may not go into the bathhouse adjacent to minḥa, it was referring to all matters involved in a visit to the bathhouse; not only washing, but also washing one’s hair, rinsing, and sweating. And he may not enter the tannery adjacent to minḥa, the reference is to a large tannery where there are many hides that require tanning and he must initiate the tanning process from the beginning. And he may not enter to eat, the reference is to a big meal, which lasts a long time. And he may not enter to sit in judgment, refers to a judge who enters at the beginning of the trial, and, generally, it will take a long time until a verdict is reached.
The Gemara relates another story. Bar Kappara said to the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whose husband’s name was ben Elasa: Tomorrow I will drink wine at your father’s dancing and your mother’s singing [kirekanei]. Ben Elasa was the son-in-law of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and was a very wealthy man. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invited him to the wedding of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: And what is the meaning of the word zimma, lewdness, as in the verse: “They are near kinswomen; it is lewdness [zimma]” (Leviticus 18:17), stated with regard to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter? He said to him: Perform for me as you did the previous time. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, and bar Kappara said to him that zimma means: What is she [zo ma hi]? This man would be confused about how to refer to his wives; his wife is also his other wife’s mother or daughter. Ben Elasa could not tolerate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s humiliation, so he and his wife arose and left the wedding.
MISHNA: The priest then came to the eastern side of the Temple courtyard, farthest from the Holy of Holies, to the north of the altar. The deputy was to his right, and the head of the patrilineal family belonging to the priestly watch that was assigned to serve in the Temple that week was to his left. And they arranged two goats there, and there was a lottery receptacle there, and in it were two lots. These were originally made of boxwood, and the High Priest Yehoshua ben Gamla fashioned them of gold, and the people would mention him favorably for what he did.
The Gemara challenges this last point: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state a principle that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, in which the name of the tanna who issued the rulings does not appear? And we learned explicitly in our mishna, which is unattributed, that if one bathed and dried himself even with ten towels, he may not carry them in his hand. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s version of the mishna does not teach this halakha unattributed; rather, it teaches it in accordance with the opinion of ben Ḥakhinai, which is the opinion of an individual Sage that is not the accepted halakha.
Rava said: But isn’t it taught in a baraitain accordance with the opinion of Rav? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 13:7): When the priests receive their portion of the shewbread each week, the modest ones withdraw their hands and do not take it, and the gluttons receive all the shares of the bread. This indicates that offerings may be apportioned according to the priests’ wishes. The Gemara rejects this: What is the meaning of receive the shares? It does not mean that they exchange one portion for another with halakhic sanction; it means that they would snatch their colleagues’ portions, as it teaches in the latter clause of that same baraita: An incident occurred involving one who snatched his share and his colleague’s share, and they called him ben Ḥamtzan, son of the snatcher, until the day he died.
He said to them: Did you hear that Dosa ben Harkinas issued this ruling, or did you hear that it was stated by ben Harkinas? They said to him: On your life, Rabbi, we heard simply ben Harkinas. He said to them: If so, it is no wonder, as I have a younger brother who is the firstborn of the Satan, i.e., he is extremely sharp and as brazen as a demon. And his name is Yonatan, and he is among the disciples of Shammai. It is he who issued this ruling.
Later, after calming down, he said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Why don’t you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that he was so angry about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent in worlds” (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds simultaneously? Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will
And some say this halakha in the form of a baraita, not as a quote from an amora: Abba Shaul ben Imma Miriam said: Whether he wrote: Not an oath, or whether he wrote: Clear from an oath, and whether he wrote: Not a vow, or whether he wrote: Clear from a vow, and whether he added: From my property, or whether he added: From these properties, neither he nor his heirs can administer an oath to her according to the letter of the law. However, what can I do, as the Sages said that one who comes to collect a debt from the property of orphans may collect it only by means of an oath? The Gemara comments: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The practical halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Imma Miriam.
The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long
The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.
Also, Hugras ben Levi knew a chapter in the art of music, as will be explained, and he did not want to teach it to others. And the scribe ben Kamtzar did not want to teach a special act of writing. He was expert at writing all four letters of a four-letter name simultaneously. About the first ones, who were mentioned favorably, it is stated: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); and about these who were concerned only for themselves it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7).
The Sages taught: Ben Kamtzar did not want to teach others a special technique of writing. What was that technique? They said about him that he would take four quills between his fingers, and if there was a word consisting of four letters that he wanted to write, he could write it simultaneously. They said to him: What did you see that led you not to teach that technique? All the others with unique skills came up with a response to questions about the matter of their conduct, claiming that they sought to prevent their technique from being used in idol worship. However, ben Kamtzar did not come up with a response to questions about the matter of his conduct, and it was clear that his only motivation in preventing his skill from being disseminated was his own personal honor. With regard to the first people listed, it is stated: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); and about ben Kamtzar and his counterparts it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7).
The Gemara cites a source as evidence for one side of the argument: Come and hear from that which was taught in a mishna: Ben Katin made twelve spigots for the large laver to replace the original two spouts that were there, so that his twelve fellow priests who were engaged in the sacrifice of the daily offering could all sanctify their hands and feet at one time. Although there are thirteen participants listed in the mishna, the slaughterer of the offering was not required to sanctify his hands and feet because, as mentioned above, slaughtering is not a sacred service. Therefore, only twelve spigots were needed.
Since the mishna mentions an item designed to enhance the Temple service, it also lists other such items: The High Priest ben Katin made twelve spigots for the basin so that several priests could sanctify their hands and feet at once, as previously the basin had only two. He also made a machine [mukheni] for sinking the basin into flowing water during the night so that its water would not be disqualified by remaining overnight. Had the water remained in the basin overnight, it would have been necessary to pour it out the following morning. By immersing the basin in flowing water, the water inside remained fit for use the next morning.
§ The mishna continues: The High Priest ben Katin made twelve spigots for the basin. It was taught: Ben Katin did this so that twelve of his fellow priests, who are occupied with sacrificing the daily offering as explained above, could sanctify their hands and their feet simultaneously. It was taught: In the morning, when the basin is full, one sanctifies his hands and his feet from the spigots fixed at the top of the basin because the water level is high. And in the afternoon, when the water level is low, he sanctifies his hands and his feet from the spigots fixed at the bottom.
The Gemara explains: The amora who raised the question erred due to the latter clause of that same baraita, which states: Rabbi Yehuda says: He should not be circumcised because it would be dangerous for him to do so. His colleagues said to him: But weren’t there many who had drawn their residual foreskins forward and subsequently were circumcised a second time in the days of ben Koziva, otherwise known as bar Kokheva, and they fathered sons and daughters. Such re-circumcision is necessary, as it is stated: “He must surely be circumcised [himmol yimmol]” (Genesis 17:13), the double verb form indicating: Even one hundred times. And furthermore, it says: “He has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14), which comes to include one whose foreskin was drawn forward.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said similarly: One who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars and maligns them after their death will fall in Gehenna, as it is stated: “But those who turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity; peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 125:5). Even if he speaks ill of them when there is peace upon Israel, after death, when they are no longer able to fight those denouncing them (Tosafot); nevertheless the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity, to Gehenna.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers nevertheless entered into levirate marriage with his wife, in order to fulfill and confirm the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
The Gemara adds: The language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified about a man named ben Megusat, who lived in Jerusalem and was a eunuch caused by man, that his brothers entered into levirate marriage with his wife, to fulfill the statement of Rabbi Akiva. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, not only Ḥalitza but even levirate marriage is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is the correct understanding of the mishna.
§ The Gemara notes that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, there is a dispute between tanna’im if the sons of the wife who died in her husband’s lifetime are entitled to collect their mother’s marriage settlement. As it is taught in a baraita: If they died, one in his lifetime and one following his death, ben Nanas says: The sons of the first wife can say to the sons of the second wife: You are the children of a creditor, so collect your mother’s marriage contract and leave, and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contract concerning male children.
MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to four women and died, the woman he married first precedes the woman he married second in claiming her marriage contract, the second precedes the third, and the third precedes the fourth. And the first wife takes an oath to the second that she has taken nothing from the jointly owned properties of the estate in an unlawful manner, and the second takes an oath to the third, and the third to the fourth. The fourth wife is paid her share without having to take an oath. Ben Nanas says: Should she gain this advantage merely because she is last? After all, she too is being paid from property that would otherwise go to the orphans. Rather, she too is not paid without an oath.
And ben Nanas holds that what the creditor has collected, he has collected, i.e., it is not taken from him in order to pay the earlier creditor. Consequently, according to the first tanna, there is no need for the fourth wife to take an oath before she collects the property, because whatever she collects can be taken from her in order to pay the other wives. According to ben Nanas, since the property the fourth wife collects cannot be taken from her, she must take an oath that she is collecting this property legally in order to ensure that none of the other wives will lose out because of what she collects.
An incident came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor collects from unsold property. Ben Nannas said to him: He does not collect from the guarantor at all; not from unsold property, nor from liened property that was sold, since what the guarantor wrote has no legal standing whatsoever.
Rava concludes: Let us say that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, that the obligation that one accepts upon himself is binding, and Reish Lakish stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of ben Nannas.
The Gemara responds: According to the opinion of ben Nannas, everyone agrees that if he wrote in a contract: I owe you one hundred dinars, he is not obligated to pay.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappaḥa, who had houses in five courtyards in Usha, only one of which served as his own residence. And the case came before the Sages to decide whether an eiruv must be made for all of them, and they said: Only a house of residence renders carrying prohibited.
The second cry was: Open the gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings. They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four se’a of doves
He said to them: This is what Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Four winds blow on each day, and the north wind blows together with each of the other three; as, if this were not so and the northern wind did not blow, then the world would not survive for even one hour. And the south wind is harsher than all of them, and were it not for the angel called Ben Netz, who stops it from blowing even harder, then it would destroy the entire world before it, as it is stated: “Does the hawk [netz] soar by your wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?” (Job 39:26).
§ 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.
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those captured by the monarchy is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the monarchy of Ahasuerus, i.e., a powerful king, as the woman is aware that he is merely using her to satisfy his lust and will certainly not marry her, whereas that other baraita is dealing with the monarchy of ben Netzer, a man who established for himself a minor kingdom through robbery and small-scale conquests. It is possible for a woman to suppose that a king like ben Netzer will eventually marry her.
Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling of one baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits and the ruling of the other baraita with regard to those kidnapped by bandits is not difficult: This first baraita is referring to the banditry of ben Netzer, as she might agree to his advances, hoping to become the wife of a king. Conversely, that other baraita is dealing with regular bandits [listim], as it can be assumed that the woman did not acquiesce to having intercourse, as, even if he wanted to marry her she would not agree. The Gemara asks: And this ben Netzer, how can it be that there he is called a king and here he is called a bandit? The Gemara answers: Yes, when considered alongside Ahasuerus he is merely a bandit, but when considered alongside a regular bandit he is deemed a king.
Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this verse: “And your brother shall live with you”? The Gemara answers: He requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If two people were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha. Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: “And your brother shall live with you,” indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.
§ With regard to one who accepted naziriteship upon himself that would begin upon the birth of his son, the Sage ben Reḥumi inquired of Abaye: If one said: I am hereby a nazirite when I will have a son, and another heard him and said: And it is incumbent upon me, what is the halakha with regard to the second person? Is the implication of his statement a concurrence to the statement of the first one, which would mean that he too accepts naziriteship upon himself when the first has a son, or is the implication of his statement meant to be understood about himself, i.e., that he has vowed to be a nazirite when he has a son of his own?
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to when a young girl can perform refusal. According to the Rabbis, it is until she grows two pubic hairs after she reaches the age of twelve years and one day. According to Rabbi Yehuda she still retains the right to perform refusal at that point, until the majority of the pubic area is filled with hair. In this regard, the Sages taught in a baraita: Until when can a young girl perform refusal? Until she grows two pubic hairs; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She can perform refusal until the area covered by the black pubic hairs is greater than the white skin of the genital area. Rabbi Yosei says: Until the nipple is surrounded by hair. Ben Shelakot says: Until the pubic area is filled with hair.
And Rabbi Shimon said: Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai found me in the city of Tzaidan and said to me: When you reach Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when can a young girl perform refusal? If he says to you that she may perform refusal until she grows two pubic hairs, say to him: But didn’t ben Shelakot testify in the presence of all of you in Yavne that she may perform refusal until the pubic area is filled with hair [shetekhalkel], and you did not say anything to him, thereby indicating that you conceded to him?
Rabbi Shimon continued: When I reached Rabbi Akiva, and I said what I had been told to say to him, he said to me: I do not know what this filling with hair [kilkul] is, I don’t know any ben Shelakot, and my opinion with regard to your question, until when can a young girl perform refusal, is that she can perform refusal until she grows two pubic hairs.
The Gemara comments: Until here, you have permission to speak; from this point forward you do not have permission to speak, as it is written in the book of Ben Sira: Seek not things concealed from you, nor search those hidden from you. Reflect on that which is permitted to you; you have no business with secret matters. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: What response did the Divine Voice provide to that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, when he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14), thereby intending to rise to heaven? A Divine Voice came and said to him: Wicked man, son of a wicked man, descendant, i.e., follower of the ways, of Nimrod the wicked, who caused the entire world to rebel against Him during the time of his reign.
The Gemara cites more statements concerning women. It is written in the book of Ben Sira: A good wife is a good gift for her husband. And it is written: A good one will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man; a bad wife is a plague to her husband. What is his remedy? He should divorce her and he will be cured of his plague. A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days are doubled. His pleasure in her beauty makes him feel as though he has lived twice as long.
§ The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits [veset] or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better.
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach thatbaraitaonly in a language whereby a certain imbecile named ben Tedal states that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, a question remains, as isn’t there a stated reason for stringency in cases of uncertainties with regard to gifts left for the poor? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do justice to the afflicted and destitute” (Psalms 82:3)? Specifically, what is the meaning of “do justice”?
The mishna taught that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth is eaten for two days and the intervening night. The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Teima, for it was taught in a baraita that ben Teima says: The Festival peace-offering that comes with the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan is like the Paschal lamb and is eaten for only a day and a night, whereas the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, i.e., the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of Passover, just as it is brought on the first day of each of the other Festivals, is treated like a regular peace-offering and is eaten for two days and one, i.e., the intervening, night.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of ben Teima, is the Festival peace-offering that is brought with the Paschal lamb eaten roasted like the Paschal lamb itself or is it not eaten roasted? The possible considerations are as follows: When the Merciful One compares the Festival peace-offering to the Paschal lamb in the Torah, was that only with regard to leaving it over until the morning, but with regard to the mitzva of roasting, no such comparison is made? Or perhaps there is no difference; the comparison was complete, and the Festival peace-offering is roasted just like the Paschal lamb.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution from what was taught in a mishna: In the time of the Temple, one of the questions that the children would ask on the night of Passover was: How is this night different from all other nights? For on all other nights we eat meat that is roasted, stewed, or boiled, whereas on this night it is all roasted. And Rav Ḥisda said: This is the statement of ben Teima, indicating that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth must be roasted. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the Festival peace-offering must be roasted just like the Paschal lamb.
The Gemara continues the story: As they were journeying, a demon named ben Temalyon emerged to greet them. He said to them: Do you wish that I will join you and come with you in order to help nullify this decree? When he saw that a demon was coming to help save the Jewish people, Rabbi Shimon cried and said: What, even for a maidservant of my father’s home, Hagar the Egyptian, who was Abraham’s handmaid, an angel was made available to appear to her three times to help her. Each of the three mentions of “and the angel of the Lord said unto her” (Genesis 16:9–11) in the story of Hagar is understood as a reference to a different angel. But I apparently do not deserve assistance from an angel even one time, but only help from a demon. In any case, let the miracle come and save the Jewish people, even if only through a demon.
The demon ben Temalyon went before them and ascended into the emperor’s daughter and possessed her. When Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai arrived there, the emperor’s palace, he said: Ben Temalyon, emerge! Ben Temalyon, emerge! And once Rabbi Shimon called to him, ben Temalyon emerged and left the emperor’s daughter, and she was cured. When the emperor saw that Rabbi Shimon had cured his daughter, he said to them: Ask from me any reward that you want to ask. And he took them up to his treasury to take whatever they wanted. They found that letter there that contained the decrees against the Jewish people, and they took it and tore it up, and thereby nullified the decrees.
The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.
Abaye said: We too learn in the mishna (Eduyyot 8:7): There was a family known as Beit HaTzerifa in Transjordan, and a person called ben Tziyyon forcefully distanced it and proclaimed that its lineage was flawed, although its lineage was unflawed. There was another one that ben Tziyyon forcefully drew near, although its lineage was flawed. The mishna adds: Known families such as these, Elijah comes to declare impure and to declare pure, to distance and to draw near. Abaye continues: When the mishna states: Such as these, it means those whose status we know. But a family that has become assimilated, whose flawed lineage is unknown to the public, has already become assimilated, and not even Elijah will publicize its flaw.
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.
Come and hear another proof, as ben Yasiyan said: When I went to cities overseas, I found one convert who married the wife of his maternal half brother. I said to him: My son, who permitted this to you? He said to me: There is a local woman and her seven sons to whom this was permitted. On this very bench [safsal], Rabbi Akiva sat and said two statements: He said that a convert may marry the former wife of his maternal half brother, and he said that the verse “And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying” (Jonah 3:1) implies that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him, i.e., Jonah did not receive any more prophecies. In any event, this baraitateaches that a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother. What, is it not referring to a case where the convert’s brother married her when he himself was already a convert?
A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yoḥai purified the cemetery. Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say: If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw Yehuda, son of converts, who was the cause of this entire incident. Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He directed his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.
Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash’s students said to him in amazement: How wise is Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai! Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash said to them: This source is not his own, as it is a set tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai learned it from him. Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash provided the background for this claim. As, on one occasion the gentile monarchy issued a decree that the Jewish people may not observe Shabbat, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must engage in intercourse with their wives when they are menstruating.
And there was another incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, who went to study Torah before Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s son fell ill. He said to him: Ḥanina, my son, pray for mercy on behalf of my son so that he will live. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed his head between his knees in order to meditate and prayed for mercy upon his behalf, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s son lived. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said about himself: Had ben Zakkai stuck his head between his knees throughout the entire day, they would have paid him no attention. His wife said to him: And is Ḥanina greater than you? He replied to her: No, but his prayer is better received than my own because he is like a servant before the King, and as such he is able to enter before the King and make various requests at all times. I, on the other hand, am like a minister before the King, and I can enter only when invited and can make requests only with regard to especially significant matters.
and the priests are troubled by being forced to circumvent it, as it is prohibited for them to become ritually impure from contact with a corpse. There was suspicion, but no certainty, that a corpse was buried there. Therefore, they were unable to definitively determine its status. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there a person who knows that there was a presumption of ritual purity here? Is there anyone who remembers a time when this place was not considered ritually impure, or that at least part of it was considered to be ritually pure? An Elder said to him: Here ben Zakkai planted and cut the teruma of lupines. In this marketplace Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who himself was a priest, once planted lupines that were given to him as teruma. On that basis, the conclusion can be drawn that it was definitely ritually pure. Rabbi Shimon, like Jacob, also did so and took steps to improve the city and examined the ground (Tosafot). Everywhere that the ground was hard, he pronounced it ritually pure as there was certainly no corpse there, and every place that the ground was soft, he marked it indicating that perhaps a corpse was buried there. In that way, he purified the marketplace so that even priests could walk through it.
And Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (40a): An incident occurred, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai examined the witnesses with regard to the stems of figs, as to their color and shape, in order to expose a contradiction between the witnesses. When he found a discrepancy in their reports about the figs, he dismissed the testimony. Rabbi Meir adopts this opinion, and therefore a woman cannot be tried for adultery if the witnesses disagree about details like these. The Rabbis accept such testimony, and consequently, they require a court of twenty-three judges.
The baraita continues: And on that day the mother of the Sage ben Zaza died, and Rabban Gamliel delivered a great eulogy on her behalf. He did this not because she was worthy of this honor; rather, he eulogized her so that the people would know that the court had not sanctified the month, as eulogies are prohibited on the New Moon.
MISHNA: It is a mitzva by Torah law to mention the exodus from Egypt at night, but some held that this mitzva was, like phylacteries or ritual fringes, fulfilled only during the day and not at night. For this reason it was decided: The exodus from Egypt is mentioned at night, adjacent to the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am approximately seventy years old, and although I have long held this opinion, I was never privileged to prevail (Me’iri) and prove that there is a biblical obligation to fulfill the accepted custom (Ra’avad) and have the exodus from Egypt mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma interpreted it homiletically and proved it obligatory.
GEMARA: The fundamental dispute between Ben Zoma and the Sages appears in the mishna, and the baraita cites its continuation. Disputing the position of the Sages that: All the days of your life, refers to both this world and the days of the Messiah, it was taught in a baraita that Ben Zoma said to the Sages: And is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Was it not already said that Jeremiah prophesied that in the days of the Messiah: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, that they will no longer say: The Lord lives Who brought up the children of Israel out of the Land of Egypt. Rather: As the Lord lives, that brought up and led the seed of the house of Israel up out of the north country and from all the countries where I had driven them” (Jeremiah 23:7–8).
The Gemara relates that the students asked Ben Zoma: Why did the Sages say that food items that come due to the meal during the meal, neither require a blessing before eating them nor after eating them? He said to them: Because bread exempts them. They asked: If so, bread should also exempt wine. Yet, one recites a blessing over wine during the meal. The Gemara responds: Wine is different,
With regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, that David did not say Halleluya until he saw the downfall of the wicked, the Gemara relates: There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for God to have mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written. One should pray for an end to their transgressions, not for the demise of the transgressors themselves.
The Gemara relates an additional example of Berurya’s incisive insight: A certain heretic said to Berurya: It is written: “Sing, barren woman who has not given birth, open forth in song and cry, you did not travail, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, said the Lord” (Isaiah 54:1). Because she has not given birth, she should sing and rejoice?
Having discussed wise speech and the wisdom of Jewish women, the Gemara cites the following story: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was walking along the way, and met Berurya. He said to her: On which path shall we walk in order to get to Lod? She said to him: Foolish Galilean, didn’t the Sages say: Do not talk much with women? You should have said your question more succinctly: Which way to Lod?
§ The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her.
§ Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The Jewish people are destined to eat from the bounty of, i.e., enjoy, the years of the Messiah. Rav Yosef says: Isn’t this obvious? And rather, who else will eat from them? Will Ḥillak and Billak, two shiftless characters, eat from them? The Gemara explains that Rav Giddel’s statement serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Hillel, who says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled during the days of Hezekiah.
§ It is taught in a baraita: The following was said about Binyamin the righteous, who was appointed supervisor over the charity fund. Once, a woman came before him during years of drought and said to him: My master, sustain me. He said to her: I swear by the Temple service that there is nothing left in the charity fund. She said to him: My master, if you do not sustain me, a woman and her seven sons will die. He arose and sustained her with his own funds. After some time, he fell deathly ill. The ministering angels said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You said that anyone who preserves a single life in Israel is regarded as if he has preserved an entire world. Should then Binyamin the righteous, who saved a woman and her seven sons, die after these few years, still in his youth? They immediately tore up his sentence. A Sage taught: They added twenty-two years to his life.
Regarding blessings that do not conform to the formula instituted by the Sages, the Gemara relates that Binyamin the shepherd ate bread and afterward recited in Aramaic: Blessed is the Master of this bread. Rav said, he thereby fulfilled his obligation to recite a blessing. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Rav himself say: Any blessing that does not contain mention of God’s name is not considered a blessing? The Gemara emends the formula of his blessing. He said: Blessed is the All-Merciful, Master of this bread.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who deems the lulav fit even if the tops of two of the myrtle branches were severed, whichever way you look at it, his statement is problematic. If he requires whole myrtle branches, and those whose tops are severed do not fill the criterion of beauty, let him require all of them to be whole. And if he does not require whole myrtle branches, even one branch should not be required to be whole either, as Rabbi Tarfon said. The Sage Bira’a said that Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yishmael retracted his statement. He concedes that, fundamentally, only one myrtle branch is required, and that branch must be whole.
The tractate concludes with a statement related to the topic of dancing. Ulla of the city of Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: In the future, in the end of days, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will arrange a dance of the righteous, and He will be sitting among them in the Garden of Eden, and each and every one of the righteous will point to God with his finger, as it is stated: “And it shall be said on that day: Behold, this is our God, for whom we waited, that He might save us. This is the Lord; for whom we waited. We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation” (Isaiah 25:9). God will be revealed, so that every righteous individual will be able to say: This is our God, as though they were pointing at Him with a finger.
MISHNA: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell on grapes, one rinses them and they are permitted. But if the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden. In a case where the wine fell on figs or on dates, if there is sufficient wine in them to impart flavor, they are forbidden. And there was an incident involving Boethus ben Zunen, who transported dried figs in a ship, and a barrel of wine used for a libation broke and fell on them, and he asked the Sages as to the halakha, and the Sages deemed the figs permitted.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the incident related in the mishna: Was an incident cited to contradict the halakha stated immediately before it? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If the wine imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, the food is permitted. And there was also an incident involving Boethus ben Zunen, who was transporting dried figs in a ship, and a barrel of wine used for a libation broke and fell on them, and the incident came before the Sages, and the Sages deemed the figs permitted because the flavor given by the wine did not enhance their taste but was instead to their detriment.
And this question was asked by a Boethusian to Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi: From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal? He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.” The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten. He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten. He said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar? To two people who were sentenced to death by the king. One was killed by the king himself, and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor]. Which one is more praiseworthy? You must say: The one that the king himself killed. Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior. He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifotshould be eaten, as they were killed by the king. He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior. The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].
And similarly, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the status of a Sadducee is a matter of dispute between tanna’im: If one lives with a gentile, a Sadducee, or a Boethusian in the same alleyway, they render carrying prohibited for him. Rabban Gamliel says: A Sadducee or a Boethusian do not prohibit one from carrying. There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with Rabban Gamliel in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, and he renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. Rabban Gamliel said to his sons: Hurry and take out those utensils that you wish to take out, and bring in those utensils that you wish to bring in, before that loathsome person retracts his renunciation and takes out his utensils and prohibits you from using the alleyway, as he renounced his rights in your favor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
MISHNA:If the members of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are not familiar with that one who saw the new moon, i.e., that he is a valid witness, the members of his local court of twenty-three send another with him to testify about him. The mishna adds: Initially, the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month from any person, as all are presumed to be qualified witnesses, absent any disqualifying factors. However, when the Boethusians, a sect whose members had their own opinions with regard to the establishment of the Festivals, corrupted the process by sending false witnesses to testify about the new moon, the Sages instituted that they would accept this testimony only from those men familiar to the Sanhedrin as valid witnesses.
The mishna taught: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month from any person, and this continued until the Boethusians began to corrupt the process. The Sages taught a baraita that describes the decisive incident: What was the manner of the corruption in which the Boethusians engaged? Once, the Boethusians tried to mislead the Sages with regard to the day of the new moon. They hired two people for four hundred dinars to testify falsely that they had seen the new moon on the thirtieth day of the month. One of them was from our own, i.e., a member of the Pharisees and the Sages of Israel, and the other was one of theirs.
Realizing that the testimony of the first witness was also false, the Sages said to him: Who persuaded you to act in this manner? He said to them: I heard that the Boethusians were seeking to mislead the Sages, and I said to myself: I will go and hire myself out to give false testimony, and I will inform the Sages of the truth, lest unworthy people come and mislead the Sages.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and Ḥoms, salsela and malmala, which were all special types of linen. The Gemara explains what was unique about each of these fabrics: When folded, the sivni and Ḥoms could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a nut and half a nut. When the salsela and malmala were folded, they could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a pistachio nut and half a pistachio nut. These fabrics were so thin that they could be compressed to a small size, but when they were unfolded they were large enough to cover Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: A person named Bonyos sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a measure [modya] of a se’a from a place called Na’usa, where they had a tradition that it was an ancient and accurate measure (Ritva). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi measured it and found it contained 217 eggs.
Botnit, son of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, said to him: Would you have vowed with the knowledge that the Sages would be troubled even to the point of going from shade to sun and from sun to shade? He said: No, and they dissolved it.
Ravina said: Samma bar Ḥilkai said to me that the father of bar Abuveram, and some say that it was the brother of bar Abuveram, raises a difficulty: And is blood spurting superior to the requirement of the Rabbis as an indication of life? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: It is permitted only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail?
§ The mishna continues: And the priests and the people who were in the courtyard respond after he recites the name of God: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says the following with regard to the verse: “When I call out the name of the Lord, give glory to our God” (Deuteronomy 32:3). Moses said to the Jewish people: When I mention the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, you give Him glory and recite praises in his honor. Ḥananya, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, says that proof for the practice is from a different source: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7). The prophet, Solomon, said to the Jewish people: When I mention the Righteous One of all worlds, you accord Him a blessing.
Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, say: This too is sacred. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says: Hospitality accorded to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence? In accordance with whose opinion is that statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of that pair of tanna’im, Ḥanina, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who understood that Abraham was speaking to God.
The Gemara asks: Is there not? But isn’t it taught in a baraita reported by Isi, father of Rabbi Zeira, and some say it was taught by the brother of Rabbi Zeira before Rabbi Zeira: If at first one did not have his own garment to rend, and he acquired one during the seven-day period of mourning, he should rend it then. But if he acquired it only after the seven-day period of mourning, he does not rend it.
Nakdimon went back and entered the Temple, wrapped himself in his prayer shawl, and stood in prayer. He said before God: Master of the Universe, let it be known that You have beloved ones in Your world. Immediately, the clouds scattered and the sun shined. At that time, the master said to him: If the sun had not broken through the clouds, I would have had a claim against you, by which I could have taken my coins from you. A Sage taught: Nakdimon was not his real name; rather his name was Buni. And why was he called Nakdimon? Because the sun broke through [nikdera] for him.
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).
Then they brought Buni in to stand trial. Buni said to the judges: Shall Buni be executed? But isn’t it written: “My firstborn son [beni] is Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [binkha]” (Exodus 4:23).
Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see Ḥagiga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya was standing in the house of the Caesar. A certain heretic, who was also present, gestured to him, indicating that his was the nation whose Master, God, turned His face away from it. Rabbi Yehoshua gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us in protection. The Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua: What did he gesture to you, and how did you respond? He replied: He indicated that mine is the nation whose Master turned His face from it, and I gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us.
It was the youngest brother who had said this, and the emperor pitied him. Seeking a way to spare the boy’s life, the emperor said to him: I will throw down my seal before you; bend over and pick it up, so that people will say that he has accepted the king’s authority [harmana]. The boy said to him: Woe [Ḥaval] to you, Caesar, woe to you, Caesar. If you think that for the sake of your honor I should fulfill your command and do this, then for the sake of the honor of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so should I fulfill His command.
The Gemara comments: And this is not difficult, as the responses do not in fact contradict one another. Rather, when he said: Even a bed is prohibited, this is referring to folding beds like those of the Carmanians. Unfolding them is considered like making a tent. When he said: Even a canopy is permitted, this is referring to spreading the canopy in the manner explained by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. The canopy was bound by a string from before Shabbat. When he said: A canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted, this is referring to beds and canopies like ours, which do not fold. A bed of that kind involves no building. However, spreading canopies is performed in a manner similar to constructing a tent.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who built a mansion [apadna] on a garbage heap [akilkalta] belonging to orphans, and Rav Naḥman confiscated his mansion from him as he did not pay the owners of the property. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Naḥman holds that one who resides in another’s courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof taken from this case, because it was a unique situation. In that case Carmanians, nomadic tribes, were initially living on the property, and they would pay the orphans a small amount for the use of the land, and when this man built his mansion he removed the Carmanians from there. Rav Naḥman had said to the man who built the mansion: Go and appease the orphans with regard to their lost income, but he did not pay attention to the ruling. Therefore, Rav Naḥman confiscated his mansion from him.
The two Sages had one final set of queries for Abba Ḥilkiyya. And what is the reason that the clouds began to form on that side where the Master’s wife stood before your own side? He explained: Because my wife is frequently at home, and she gives bread to the poor, and therefore her provision of benefit to the needy is immediate, i.e., soon after the rains fall she is able to provide the needy with provisions. Accordingly, her prayers are answered without delay. In contrast, I give money to the poor, and consequently, the benefit of my gift is not immediate, i.e., it takes a lot of time before the rainfall results in my ability to give money to the poor. Alternatively, her prayers may have been answered first because when certain hooligans [biryonei] were living in our neighborhood, I prayed that they should die, but she prayed that they should repent. And indeed, they repented.
The Gemara relates: There were certain hooligans [biryonei] who were living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zeira. He brought them close, i.e., treated them with friendship, in order to cause them to repent of their sins, but the other Sages disapproved of his actions. When Rabbi Zeira died, those hooligans said: Until now, there was the short one with singed legs, i.e., Rabbi Zeira, who would pray for compassion for us. Who will pray for compassion for us now? They thought about this in their hearts and repented. Ultimately, Rabbi Zeira’s actions were proven correct, as they repented.
The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Certain porters broke his barrel of wine after he had hired them to transport the barrels. He took their cloaks as payment for the lost wine. They came and told Rav. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Give them their cloaks. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “That you may walk in the way of good men” (Proverbs 2:20). Rabba bar bar Ḥanan gave them their cloaks. The porters said to Rav: We are poor people and we toiled all day and we are hungry and we have nothing. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Go and give them their wages. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “And keep the paths of the righteous” (Proverbs 2:20).
The Gemara relates: There were certain porters who were carrying a barrel of wine. When they wanted to rest, they placed it under a gutter and the barrel burst. They came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, who brought out horns and had them blown as he excommunicated the demon of that place. The demon came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage said to it: Why did you do this? The demon said to him: How else should I act, when these men place a barrel on my ear?
The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving certain thieves who came to Pumbedita and opened many barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews, and the halakha follows the majority, and therefore the wine is not rendered forbidden. There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Shmuel said: The wine is permitted.
There were certain zealots among the people of Jerusalem. The Sages said to them: Let us go out and make peace with the Romans. But the zealots did not allow them to do this. The zealots said to the Sages: Let us go out and engage in battle against the Romans. But the Sages said to them: You will not be successful. It would be better for you to wait until the siege is broken. In order to force the residents of the city to engage in battle, the zealots arose and burned down these storehouses [ambarei] of wheat and barley, and there was a general famine.
This may be derived from an incident involving Rabba and Rav Yosef, as Rav Yosef was Sinai, extremely erudite, and Rabba was one who uproots mountains, extremely sharp. The moment arrived when they were needed; one of them was to be chosen as head of the yeshiva. They sent the following question there, to the Sages of Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence, Sinai or one who uproots mountains? They sent to them in response: Sinai takes precedence, for everyone needs the owner of the wheat, one who is expert in the sources. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef did not accept the appointment, as the Chaldean astrologers told him: You will preside as head of the yeshiva for two years.
And from that which transpired to Rabbi Akiva as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as Rabbi Akiva had a daughter, and Chaldean astrologers told him that on the same day that she enters the wedding canopy, a snake will bite her and she will die. She was very worried about this. On that day, her wedding day, she took the ornamental pin from her hair and stuck it into a hole in the wall for safekeeping, and it happened that it entered directly into the eye of the snake. In the morning, when she took the pin, the snake was pulled and came out with it.
And from that which transpired to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, As Chaldean astrologers told Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s mother: Your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to her son: Cover your head so that the fear of Heaven will be upon you, and pray for Divine mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day he was sitting and studying beneath a palm tree that did not belong to him, and the cloak fell off of his head. He lifted his eyes and saw the palm tree. He was overcome by impulse and he climbed up and detached a bunch of dates with his teeth. Apparently, he had an inborn inclination to steal, but was able to overcome that inclination with proper education and prayer.
Furthermore, the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yishmael that there is a proof against his opinion from an incident involving Cleopatra, Queen of Alexandria. Since her maidservants were sentenced to death by the government, she took advantage of the opportunity and experimented on them in order to examine the amount of time it takes for an embryo to develop. She had her maidservants engage in intercourse and operated on them following their execution in order to determine the stage at which an embryo is fully formed, and found that both in this case, when the embryo is male, and that case, when it is female, the formation is complete on the forty-first day after conception. Rabbi Yishmael said to them in response: I bring you proof from the Torah, and you bring me proof from the fools?
The Gemara cites another baraita that presents a different version of this exchange between Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yishmael said to the Rabbis that there is a proof for his opinion from an incident involving Cleopatra, the Greek queen, as her maidservants were sentenced to death by the government, and she experimented on them and found that a male embryo is fully formed on the forty-first day after conception, and a female embryo is formed on the eighty-first day. The Rabbis said to him: One does not bring proof from the fools.
The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.
The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Naḥman counter this proof? There, in the case of a woman who put money in the box, the reason she may rely on agency is in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya, as Rav Shemaya said: There is a legal presumption that the court of priests would not leave the Temple until all the money in the collection box has been spent on the purchase of sacrifices. We may rely only on the special court appointed to carry out this task, as it can be trusted. However, no proof may be brought from here with regard to an ordinary agent.
And this is in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shemaya, who said that there is a presumption that the court of priests will not stand up from there, i.e., their place of meeting in the Temple, until all the money in the collection boxes, which was placed there in order that the priests should use the money to bring offerings on the donors’ behalf, is used up. The priests ensure that any money they receive for offerings is used to purchase the offering and sacrifice it that same day. Certainly, if they were actually entrusted with an animal in order to sacrifice it, they would also do that on the very same day.
MISHNA: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them.
Rabbi Yehoshua then came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, who said to him: If we come to debate and question the rulings of the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate and question the rulings of every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 24:9). But why were the names of these seventy Elders not specified? Rather, this comes to teach that every set of three judges that stands as a court over the Jewish people has the same status as the court of Moses. Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: With regard to two judges who convened a tribunal and judged, their verdict is a binding verdict; but because they contravened the rabbinic ordinance mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, they are called an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It was a document in which it was written: We, the members of the court of Rabbana Ashi, convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.
The Gemara continues: As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with the same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found, i.e., brought, in the court of Rav Huna, and the name of the place that was written in it was: In Sheviri the city, which is on the Rakhis River. And Rav Huna said: One is concerned about the possibility of the existence of two cities called Sheviri, and it is possible that this bill of divorce belongs to another man with an identical name.
The Gemara explains: But isn’t the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are frequently found, as there were always many people present there? And yet Rabba resolved the question and ruled that one should return the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. Apparently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in one town, then yes, there is a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.
As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with this same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this:
The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman performed an action in the court of the Exilarch in accordance with his statement that even if the lender states his condition after the loan is granted, the lender acquires the entire field if the loan isn’t repaid within the specified time period. The case then came before Rav Yehuda, who tore up the lender’s deed of ownership of the field, claiming it was invalid. The Exilarch said to Rav Naḥman: Rav Yehuda tore up your document, i.e., he overruled your decision. Rav Naḥman said to him: Did a child tear it up? A great man tore it up; he must have seen in it some reason to invalidate it, and that is why he tore it up.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans issued a decree that one who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is liable due to his violation of prohibitions represented by the letters: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman [nidda] who did not immerse in a ritual bath and remains impure. Although by Torah law there is no impurity of menstruation with regard to gentiles, it has been decreed that one must distance himself from them as he does from a menstruating woman. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant [shifḥa], as relative to a Jewish woman, the status of a gentile woman is that of a maidservant. He is liable for engaging in intercourse with a gentile woman [goya] and with a married woman [eshet ish].
He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.
As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.
The Gemara elaborates: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis who hold that the heifer may be purchased from a gentile said to Rabbi Eliezer: There was an incident in which Jews purchased the red heifer from a gentile, and Dama was his name. And some say Remetz was his name. In response to this claim, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Can one bring a proof from there? Certainly not, as Jews were safeguarding it from the time that it was born, to ensure that a person did not engage in bestiality with it. Contrary to the opinion of Sheila, it is evident from here that Rabbi Eliezer was concerned about this possibility. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer has two requirements: The purchase of the red heifer must be from a Jew, and he is also concerned about the possibility that a person had engaged in bestiality with the animal.
The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Ulla: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rav Ulla said to them: Go and see what one gentile did in Ashkelon, and his name was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages sought to purchase merchandise [perakmatya] from him for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, but the key for the container in which the merchandise was kept was placed under his father’s head, and he was sleeping at the time. And Dama ben Netina would not disturb his father by waking him, although he could have made a substantial profit.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How far must one go to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what one gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and the name of the son was Dama ben Netina. Once the Sages wished to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest for six hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit, and Rav Kahana taught that it was eight hundred thousand gold dinars’ profit. And the key to the chest holding the jewels was placed under his father’s head, and he would not disturb him.
And if you would say that indeed, that is so, this cannot be correct. But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: The Sages asked Rabbi Eliezer: To what extent must one exert himself to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Go and see what a certain gentile did for his father in Ashkelon, and his name is Dama ben Netina. Once, the Sages sought to purchase precious stones from him for the ephod of the High Priest
To reconcile the baraitot, Rav Pappa said: When the baraitateaches that an expert is exempt from liability, it is referring to renowned experts such as the money changers Dankhu and Issur, whose expertise is so great that they do not need to learn about assessing currency at all. The Gemara asks: But if they are so proficient, in what did they err? The Gemara answers: They erred with regard to a coin from a new press, which at that time was leaving the press, and they did not know its value.
The Gemara asks: But what is different about Dankhu and Issur, who are exempt due to the fact that they do not need to learn about assessing currency? Rabbi Ḥiyya too did not need to learn, as he was also an expert. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ḥiyya was not actually required to return a dinar to this woman, but when he did so he acted beyond the letter of the law. This is as that which Rav Yosef taught concerning the verse: “And you shall show them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do” (Exodus 18:20): “And you shall show them”; this is referring to
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
Rava said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Dari, who only dances among the wine barrels [khuvei] and does not perform any labor. Did he say this concerning other slaves? All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board. His father said to him: I maintain that the halakha is in accordance with this statement said by Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina that Rav says, as he says: One who seizes another’s slave and has him perform labor is exempt from paying the master for the labor of the slave,
Based on this halakha, Rabbi Ila, son of Rav Shmuel bar Marta, said in the name of Rav: One who recited the verse, “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,” and was immediately overcome by sleep, fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema. Similarly, Rav Naḥman said to his slave, Daru: If you see that I have fallen asleep, bother me to recite the first verse, do not bother me to recite any more than that. Similarly, Rav Yosef said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabba: What would your father do? Rav Yosef, son of Rabba, said to him: He would exert himself not to fall asleep in order to recite the first verse, he would not exert himself to recite any more than that.
Rav Naḥman said to Daru, his slave: Insulate cold food for me on Shabbat, so that it will not become warm, and bring me water that a gentile cook [kappeila] heated on a weekday, as the prohibition to eat food cooked by a gentile does not apply to water. When Rabbi Ami heard this, he became angry. Rav Yosef said: What is the reason that Rabbi Ami become angry? Rav Naḥman acted in accordance with the rulings of his teachers; in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Rav, and in one matter in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel.
Rav Naḥman said to his servant, Daru: With regard to a slave who is freed by his master, who gives him gold and silver, what should the slave say to him? Daru said to him: He must thank and praise his master. He said to him: If so, you have exempted us from reciting the questions of: Why is this night different, as you have stated the essence of the seder night. Rav Naḥman immediately began to recite: We were slaves.
§ The Gemara continues discussing the issue of circumcisions performed by gentiles. It was stated: From where is it derived with regard to circumcision performed by a gentile that it is not valid? Daru bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: And God said to Abraham: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is derived from the verse: “He must be circumcised [himmol yimmol].” According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this verse teaches that a Jew must be circumcised by one who is already circumcised.
The Gemara answers: Is there reason to resolve the contradiction according to anyone but Rav? Rav himself invalidates circumcision performed by a gentile, as it was stated: From where is it derived that circumcision performed by a gentile is not valid? Daru bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: This is derived from the verse: “And God said unto Abraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you, and your seed after you throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The verse indicates that only the descendants of Abraham may perform circumcision.
Rabbi Yirmeya asks: Concerning three people who deposit their funds into one single purse, meaning they are partners in expenses and profits, what is the halakha? With regard to valuations, are they considered as three people or as one? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution to the matter from a baraita: A man and his two wives may redeem produce of the second tithe where its value is unknown. It is apparent that three partners are considered a court for this matter. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps this was a case of a marriage with special arrangements, such as that between Rav Pappa and his wife, the daughter of Abba of Sura. Rav Pappa and his wife handled their finances independently; she had her own property and was responsible for her own expenses.
The Gemara relates: The daughter of Aḥer came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: Rabbi, provide me with sustenance, as she was in need of food. He said to her: Whose daughter are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Aḥer. He said to her, angrily: Is there still of his seed remaining in the world? But isn’t it stated: “He shall have neither son nor grandson among his people or any remaining in his dwellings” (Job 18:19)? She said to him: Remember his Torah, and do not remember his deeds. Immediately, fire descended and licked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s bench. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: If God protects the honor of those who treat the Torah with contempt in such a manner, as Aḥer despised the Torah and relinquished its teachings, how much more so would He do for those who treat it with honor.
§ In connection to the above incident concerning the poverty of scholars and their potential to become wealthy through remarkable circumstances, the Gemara relates an incident: Rabbi Akiva became betrothed to the daughter of bar Kalba Savua. When bar Kalba Savua heard about their betrothal, he took a vow prohibiting her from eating all of his property. Despite this, she went ahead and married Rabbi Akiva.
He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥananya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.
healthy; one who eats eggs will have large-eyed children; one who eats fish will have graceful children; one who eats celery will have beautiful children; one who eats coriander [kusbarta] will have corpulent children; and one who eats etrogim will have sweet-smelling children. It is related with regard to the daughter of King Shapur of Persia, that her mother ate etrogim while pregnant with her and they used to place her in front of her father on top of all the spices, as she was so fragrant.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. When the Sages designated for her four hundred gold coins for her account of perfumes, from her late husband’s estate, for use on that same day, she blessed them and said to them: This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters, and they answered after her: Amen.
She said to him: My teacher, sustain me. He did not recognize her, so he said to her: My daughter, who are you? She said to him: I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Guryon. He said to her: My daughter, the money of your father’s household, where did it go? How did you become so poor? She said to him: My teacher, is it not that they say such a proverb in Jerusalem: Salt for money is lacking [Ḥaser]? There is nothing with which to preserve it and prevent it from being lost. And some say the proverb asserts that kindness [Ḥesed] is salt for money, i.e., using money for acts of kindness preserves it. He continued to ask her: And the money of your father-in-law’s house, which was used properly, for benevolent acts, where is it? She said to him: This one came and destroyed that one; all the money was combined, and it was all lost together.
Having mentioned the deeds of Neḥunya, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Neḥunya the ditchdigger, where she fell into a large cistern and no one could extricate her from it. They came and informed Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa so that he would pray on her behalf. When the first hour had passed from the time of her fall, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour, he said to them: She has ascended from the well, and indeed this was the case.
The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving the daughter of Neḥunya the well digger, who fell into the Great Cistern, and they came and notified Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and asked that he pray for her. After the first hour, he said to them: She is at peace and unharmed. After the second hour, he said to them: She is at peace. After the third hour he said to them: She has ascended from the cistern.
The Gemara relates another story. Bar Kappara said to the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whose husband’s name was ben Elasa: Tomorrow I will drink wine at your father’s dancing and your mother’s singing [kirekanei]. Ben Elasa was the son-in-law of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and was a very wealthy man. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invited him to the wedding of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
§ The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Ḥiyya, as well, holds that gold coins are currency relative to silver. This is seen from the incident where Rav borrowed gold dinars from the daughter of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Ultimately, the gold dinars appreciated in value. Rav came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask his opinion. Rav was concerned that by returning more valuable dinars than he borrowed, this would violate the prohibition against paying interest. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go and pay her unflawed and weighed dinars. Return the number of dinars that you borrowed, as their monetary value is irrelevant. The Gemara asks: Granted, if you say that the gold coins are currency, this works out well, as he borrowed and repaid the same coins. But if you say that the gold coins are a commodity, this is parallel to the case of one who borrows a se’a of produce and repays a se’a of produce, which is prohibited, as the price of the produce may increase in the interim (see 75a).
The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it.
The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef’s wife was once sifting flour in an unusual manner on the reverse side of a sieve. He said to her: Look, I want good-quality bread, hinting that she need not invert the sieve but may sift the flour in her regular fashion. The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Ashi’s wife was once sifting flour onto a table, rather than into a bowl in the usual manner. Rav Ashi said: This one of ours, my wife, is the daughter of Rami bar Ḥama, and Rami bar Ḥama is a master of good deeds who is meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had my wife not observed this practice in her father’s house, she would not have acted in this manner. Therefore, one can learn the halakha in practice from her actions.
Similarly, with regard to the dream of Pharaoh’s butler, the verse states: “And in the vine were three branches [sarigim]; and as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rav says: These three branches refer to the three proud princes [sarei ge’im] who emerge from the Jewish people in each and every generation. There are times when two are here in Babylonia and one is in Eretz Yisrael, and there are times when two are in Eretz Yisrael and one is here in Babylonia. When this was stated in the study hall, the Sages present turned their eyes toward Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neḥemya, the sons of the daughter of Rav, who were from the family of the Exilarch and were two leaders of the generation who resided in Babylonia.
What is the halakha? Whose creditor is she? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Ravina provided one-tenth of the estate for the daughter of Rav Ashi from two sources. From Mar, son of Rav Ashi, Ravina gave her intermediate-quality land without an oath. He collected another portion of the property from the orphan son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, who was an inheritor of the same estate from his grandfather. This portion was provided of inferior-quality land, with an oath. Since, with regard to the property that Rav Ashi’s daughter was collecting from an orphan, Ravina required an oath and allowed her to collect only low-grade land, it appears that Ravina treated the daughter as the creditor of the sons and not of the father.
As a remedy for pain of the intestines, let him bring three hundred long peppers, and every day let him drink one hundred of them with wine. It is told: Ravin of the city of Neresh prepared one hundred and fifty of our, i.e., Babylonian, peppers for the daughter of Rav Ashi, who had this illness, and she was healed.
Before Rava became the head of the yeshiva, his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, would rattle a nut in a copper vessel for him. This was in order to fend off demons when he was in the bathroom. After he was chosen to preside as head of the yeshiva, he required an additional degree of protection, so she constructed a window for him, opposite where he would defecate, and placed her hand upon his head.
Rava said: We say that the ruling that she does not immerse during that period applies only when her husband is not with her. However, if her husband is with her, her husband warms her by engaging in relations with her, and she is not susceptible to catching cold, as is illustrated in this incident involving the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife. She immersed within thirty days of giving birth, not in the presence of her husband, and caught cold, and afterward they brought her funeral bier after Rava to Pumbedita.
The Gemara asks: But yet Rava himself would send this type of meat to his wife on Shabbat eve. The Gemara answers: The daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife, is different, as he was certain about her that she was an expert in this matter. Rava trusted that his wife would realize the sciatic nerve had not been removed even when she was in a hurry on Shabbat eve.
It is told: The daughter of Rav Pappa’s father-in-law, i.e., his sister-in-law, happened before her yavam for levirate marriage, yet he was not suitable for her, although he wished to perform levirate marriage. The case came before Abaye. Abaye said to the yavam: Let her remove your shoe, and in doing so you will take her in marriage. Rav Pappa said to him: Does the Master, i.e., do you, not accept what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that this type of Ḥalitza does not work at all? Abaye said to him: But what shall I say to him?
The daughter of the emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: You are the epitome of magnificent Torah, but it is stored in an ugly vessel, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya was an unattractive man. He said to her: You may learn the answer to your statement from your father’s house. In what container do you place wine? She said to him: In earthenware vessels. He said to her: Is it conceivable that everyone stores their wine in earthenware vessels, and you also store it in earthenware vessels? Is there no distinction between the emperor and ordinary people? You should place your wine in vessels of silver and gold.
And if you wish, say instead: If she is accustomed to wine, she is given wine, but not for drinking, rather for meat pudding [tzikei], made with wine, flour, and leftover meat in a pot. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: An incident occurred involving the daughter-in-law of Nakdimon ben Guryon, whose husband had died. The Sages apportioned for her from his estate two se’a of wine for pudding, from one Shabbat eve to another. She said to them, as a blessing out of gratitude: So may you apportion for your own daughters an amount as large as this. It was taught: She was a widow waiting for her yavam, and consequently, the Sages did not answer amen after her blessing, as they did not want their daughters to reach her unfortunate state.
The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.
It is related that the daughter-in-law of Rav Zevid rebelled against her husband. She was holding a certain garment in her hands. Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi were sitting, and Rav Gamda was sitting with them. They sat and said: If a woman rebelled, she lost her right to her worn clothes, meaning she has forfeited the clothes she brought with her for her dowry even if they are still in existence. Rav Gamda said to them: Because Rav Zevid is a great man, are you willing to flatter him with regard to this halakha? Didn’t Rav Kahana say: Rava raises a dilemma about this issue with regard to worn clothes, and he did not resolve it? Yet you reached a decision out of respect for Rav Zevid. This is inappropriate. There are those who say that this incident happened differently, as these three Sages sat and said: If she rebelled, she did not lose her right to her worn clothes. Rav Gamda said to them:
The mishna continues: Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka. A minor who does not need his mother any longer is obligated in the mitzva. There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth just before Sukkot, and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof, leaving the beams, and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor.
The mishna relates: There was an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and he removed part of the roof so the baby would be in a sukka. The Gemara asks: Does the mishna cite an incident to contradict the preceding halakha that minors that are not independent are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and it teaches the following: And Shammai is stringent even with very small children; and there was also an incident and the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth and Shammai removed the coat of plaster from the roof and left the beams and roofed with the beams over the bed for the newborn minor.
§ Mar Zutra raised an objection to this issue from a different source: There was an incident in which the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth to a son. In Shammai’s opinion this newborn baby is immediately obligated in the mitzva to sit in a sukka, and he therefore removed the mortar [ma’aziva] covering the ceiling and he placedsukkacovering over the bed for the minor. Conclude from here that Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara answers: There is no proof from there, as anyone watching would say that he did it merely to increase the air. Since people would not necessarily think that he removed the mortar as a ruling of halakha, this behavior is not considered the formation of a faction.
Various Sages proceed to give contemporary examples of families where the halakhic status of the daughters-in-law of the sons and the daughters-in-law of the daughters could be confused with each other. Abaye said to Rava: I will explain to you with an example how one might become confused about these daughters-in-law. For example, this would be possible in the case of the daughter-in-law of the house of bar Tzitai, as there the children of the sons and the daughters of the same family lived together, and it was possible to confuse the halakhic status of the sons’ daughters-in-law and the daughters’ daughters-in-law. Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba. Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Mari bar Isak.
Various Sages proceed to give contemporary examples of families where the halakhic status of the daughters-in-law of the sons and the daughters-in-law of the daughters could be confused with each other. Abaye said to Rava: I will explain to you with an example how one might become confused about these daughters-in-law. For example, this would be possible in the case of the daughter-in-law of the house of bar Tzitai, as there the children of the sons and the daughters of the same family lived together, and it was possible to confuse the halakhic status of the sons’ daughters-in-law and the daughters’ daughters-in-law. Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba. Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Mari bar Isak.
Various Sages proceed to give contemporary examples of families where the halakhic status of the daughters-in-law of the sons and the daughters-in-law of the daughters could be confused with each other. Abaye said to Rava: I will explain to you with an example how one might become confused about these daughters-in-law. For example, this would be possible in the case of the daughter-in-law of the house of bar Tzitai, as there the children of the sons and the daughters of the same family lived together, and it was possible to confuse the halakhic status of the sons’ daughters-in-law and the daughters’ daughters-in-law. Rav Pappa said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Rav Pappa bar Abba. Rav Ashi said: For example, the daughter-in-law of the house of Mari bar Isak.
§ The Gemara relates: The daughter-in-law of the house of the son of Elyashiv was claiming payment of her marriage contract from the orphans, and she was in the process of bringing them to the court. The orphans said to her: It is demeaning for us that you should go dressed in this manner, in house clothes. We would rather you come in more suitable attire. She went and dressed and covered herself with all of her clothes. They came before Ravina, who said to them: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that with regard to a widow, the court appraises the clothes that are upon her. Therefore, the court takes everything she is wearing into account in the calculation of her marriage contract payment.
The mishna cites a passage that concludes its discussion of the month of Av, as well as the entire tractate of Ta’anit, on a positive note. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There were no days as joyous for the Jewish people as the fifteenth of Av and as Yom Kippur, as on them the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white clothes, which each woman borrowed from another. Why were they borrowed? They did this so as not to embarrass one who did not have her own white garments. All the garments that the women borrowed require immersion, as those who previously wore them might have been ritually impure.
And the daughters of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. And what would they say? Young man, please lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself for a wife. Do not set your eyes toward beauty, but set your eyes toward a good family, as the verse states: “Grace is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30), and it further says: “Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:31).
§ The mishna taught: As on them the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white clothes, and on the fifteenth of Av they would go out to the vineyards and dance. The Sages taught this tradition in greater detail: The daughter of the king borrows white garments from the daughter of the High Priest; the daughter of the High Priest borrows from the daughter of the deputy High Priest; the daughter of the deputy High Priest borrows from the daughter of the priest anointed for war, i.e., the priest who would read verses of Torah and address the army as they prepared for battle; the daughter of the priest anointed for war borrows from the daughter of a common priest; and all the Jewish people borrow from each other. Why would they all borrow garments? They did this so as not to embarrass one who did not have her own white garments.
The statement by the father of Shmuel was “Like an error that emerges from before the ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and it was realized. The daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and their captors took them up to Eretz Yisrael and sought to sell them or ransom them. Shmuel’s daughters left their captors standing outside, so that they would not come before the court, and the women entered the study hall of Rabbi Ḥanina. This daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and that daughter said: I was taken captive, and I am pure, and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood.
Ultimately, their captors came and entered, and it was clear that they were the captors of Shmuel’s daughters. However, since the daughters made their claim first and the court permitted them to marry into the priesthood, this remained permitted to them. This is based on the halakha that if witnesses subsequently arrive, her initial permitted status need not be revoked. Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is clear from their actions that they are the daughters of great halakhic authorities, as they knew how to conduct themselves in order to retain their presumptive status of purity. The Gemara relates: Ultimately, the matter became clear, that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel.
The Gemara analyzes the conduct of Shmuel’s father: He did not allow them to go out with strings. Didn’t we learn in the mishna that the girls may go out with strings? The Gemara answers: The strings with which the daughters of Shmuel’s father went out were colorful ones, and he was concerned that because the strings were beautiful they would come to remove them to show them to others and carry them.
But still, you should raise the dilemma: Does Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira say that her betrothal to another counts as refusal even when she had initially been married or perhaps only if she was betrothed but not married beforehand? Come and hear: The daughters-in-law of Abdan rebelled against their husbands. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent a pair of Sages to examine them and determine what could be done to rectify the matter. Some women said to the daughters-in-law: See, it is your husbands that are coming. They said back to them: Let them be your husbands.
The mishna resumes its list. On the twentieth of Av, the descendants of Paḥat Moav ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda; on the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh returned to bring wood for a second time; likewise on the first of Tevet, there was no non-priestly watch, as it is Hanukkah, on which hallel is recited, and it is the New Moon, on which an additional offering is sacrificed, and there was also a wood offering.
The mishna further taught: On the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda brought their wood offering. The Sages taught: The descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda, who was called Adin. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah.
The mishna details the times for the wood offering of priests and the people. These were private holidays specific to certain families, on which their members would volunteer a wood offering for the altar. There were nine such days and families: On the first of Nisan, the descendants of Ara? ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Tammuz, the descendants of David ben Yehuda; on the fifth of Av, the descendants of Parosh ben Yehuda; on the seventh of Av, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the tenth of Av, the descendants of Sena’a ben Binyamin; on the fifteenth of Av, the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda.
§ The mishna taught: On the twentieth of Av, the wood offering was brought by the descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda. A tannataught: The descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda. He is called Moab because Ruth the Moabite was the grandmother of David’s father, Yishai. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, whose mother was the daughter of Yishai and therefore also descended from Ruth.
The mishna further taught: On the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda brought their wood offering. The Sages taught: The descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda, who was called Adin. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah.
Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours” (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael’s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.
The Gemara relates: And on another occasion, the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Keturah came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. They said to the Jewish people before Alexander: The land of Canaan is both ours and yours, as it is written: “And these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore unto Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), and it is written: “And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19). Therefore, the land should be divided between Abraham’s heirs.
§ The mishna taught: On the twentieth of Av, the wood offering was brought by the descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda. A tannataught: The descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda. He is called Moab because Ruth the Moabite was the grandmother of David’s father, Yishai. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, whose mother was the daughter of Yishai and therefore also descended from Ruth.
The mishna further taught: On the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda brought their wood offering. The Sages taught: The descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda, who was called Adin. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah.
The Gemara continues: If it represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him teach that the descendants of David ben Yehuda returned for a second time on a different date, the twentieth of Elul, as he contends that the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are the descendants of David. And if the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, let him teach that the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, returned for a second time, as he maintains that the descendants of Pahath Moab and the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda are both the descendants of Joab.
The mishna details the times for the wood offering of priests and the people. These were private holidays specific to certain families, on which their members would volunteer a wood offering for the altar. There were nine such days and families: On the first of Nisan, the descendants of Ara? ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Tammuz, the descendants of David ben Yehuda; on the fifth of Av, the descendants of Parosh ben Yehuda; on the seventh of Av, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the tenth of Av, the descendants of Sena’a ben Binyamin; on the fifteenth of Av, the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda.
Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina who says that the verse: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision.
The Gemara relates: And on another occasion, the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Keturah came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. They said to the Jewish people before Alexander: The land of Canaan is both ours and yours, as it is written: “And these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Abraham, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore unto Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), and it is written: “And these are the generations of Isaac, son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19). Therefore, the land should be divided between Abraham’s heirs.
The mishna resumes its list. On the twentieth of Av, the descendants of Paḥat Moav ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda; on the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh returned to bring wood for a second time; likewise on the first of Tevet, there was no non-priestly watch, as it is Hanukkah, on which hallel is recited, and it is the New Moon, on which an additional offering is sacrificed, and there was also a wood offering.
§ The mishna taught: On the twentieth of Av, the wood offering was brought by the descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda. A tannataught: The descendants of Pahath Moab ben Yehuda are the descendants of David ben Yehuda. He is called Moab because Ruth the Moabite was the grandmother of David’s father, Yishai. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: These are the descendants of Joab, son of Zeruiah, whose mother was the daughter of Yishai and therefore also descended from Ruth.
The mishna resumes its list. On the twentieth of Av, the descendants of Paḥat Moav ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Elul, the descendants of Adin ben Yehuda; on the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh returned to bring wood for a second time; likewise on the first of Tevet, there was no non-priestly watch, as it is Hanukkah, on which hallel is recited, and it is the New Moon, on which an additional offering is sacrificed, and there was also a wood offering.
The mishna taught: On the first of Tevet, the descendants of Parosh returned to bring wood for a second time. The Gemara asks: Who is the author of this opinion of the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, nor that of Rabbi Yehuda, nor that of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara elaborates: If it represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir, let him teach, with regard to the twentieth of Av, that the descendants of David ben Yehuda returned for a second time. According to Rabbi Meir, the descendants of Pahath Moab are the descendants of David, and consequently they would return for a second time on that date.
The mishna details the times for the wood offering of priests and the people. These were private holidays specific to certain families, on which their members would volunteer a wood offering for the altar. There were nine such days and families: On the first of Nisan, the descendants of Ara? ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Tammuz, the descendants of David ben Yehuda; on the fifth of Av, the descendants of Parosh ben Yehuda; on the seventh of Av, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the tenth of Av, the descendants of Sena’a ben Binyamin; on the fifteenth of Av, the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda.
A Sage taught: This was something that was performed in a similar manner by the descendants of Salmai of Netophat. The Gemara explains this comment by quoting a baraita. The Sages taught: Who are the descendants of Salmai of Netophat? They said in explanation: Once, the evil kingdom of Greece issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring wood for the arrangement of the altar. And they placed guards on the roads, in the manner that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed guards, so that the Jews could not ascend for the pilgrim Festival.
The mishna details the times for the wood offering of priests and the people. These were private holidays specific to certain families, on which their members would volunteer a wood offering for the altar. There were nine such days and families: On the first of Nisan, the descendants of Ara? ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Tammuz, the descendants of David ben Yehuda; on the fifth of Av, the descendants of Parosh ben Yehuda; on the seventh of Av, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the tenth of Av, the descendants of Sena’a ben Binyamin; on the fifteenth of Av, the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda.
And included with this group of Zattu ben Yehuda’s descendants were other priests; and Levites; and anyone who erred with regard to his tribe, i.e., Israelites who did not know which tribe they were from, and the descendants of those who deceived the authorities with a pestle; and the descendants of those who packed dried figs. These last groups and their descriptions are explained in the Gemara.
The mishna further taught that on the fifteenth of Av, wood was brought by the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda, and with this group were other priests and Levites, and anyone who erred with regard to his tribe, i.e., Israelites who did not know which tribe they were from, and the descendants of those who deceived the authorities with a pestle, and the descendants of those who packed dried figs. The Sages taught: Who were the descendants of those who deceived the authorities with a pestle and the descendants of those who packed dried figs?
The mishna details the times for the wood offering of priests and the people. These were private holidays specific to certain families, on which their members would volunteer a wood offering for the altar. There were nine such days and families: On the first of Nisan, the descendants of Ara? ben Yehuda; on the twentieth of Tammuz, the descendants of David ben Yehuda; on the fifth of Av, the descendants of Parosh ben Yehuda; on the seventh of Av, the descendants of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the tenth of Av, the descendants of Sena’a ben Binyamin; on the fifteenth of Av, the descendants of Zattu ben Yehuda.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: There will not be one in him? If you say that there is not one quality for the best, that cannot be, as Rav Ashi said: I was born on the first day of the week, and one cannot say that there was nothing good about him. Rather, it must mean that there is not one quality for the worst. Didn’t Rav Ashi say: I and Dimi bar Kakuzta were both born on the first day of the week. I became a king, the head of a yeshiva, and he became the head of a gang of thieves, clearly a negative quality. Rather, one born on a Sunday is either completely for the best or completely for the worst. What is the reason for this? It is because both light and darkness were created on the first day of Creation.
The Gemara further relates that Rabbi Yitzḥak and the disciples of Rabbi Ḥanina performed an action in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, and permitted a young girl who had grown two pubic hairs to perform refusal, even though she had engaged in intercourse with her husband after growing two hairs. Rav Shemen bar Abba subsequently went and stated this story before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan went and stated it before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent a constable [ballasha] and removed that girl from her second husband.
§ Apropos the verse cited, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: But the name of the wicked shall rot? How does a name rot? Rabbi Elazar said: It means that decay will spread on their names, meaning that we do not call others by their names, and the name will sink into oblivion. Ravina raised an objection from an incident that transpired during the Second Temple era. There was an incident involving Doeg ben Yosef, whose father died and left him as a young child to his mother, who loved him. Each day his mother measured his height in handbreadths and donated a measure of gold equivalent to the weight that he gained to the Temple. Later, when the enemy prevailed and there was a terrible famine in the city, she slaughtered and ate him.
Later on, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let my daughter Donag come and pour us drinks. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman for a service such as this. Rav Naḥman replied: She is a minor. Rav Yehuda retorted: Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: And this applies when the blood is found on its knot, i.e., the place in the albumen where the embryo begins to develop, since this proves that tissue has not developed elsewhere in the egg. And so taught Dostai, father of Rabbi Aptoriki: The Sages taught that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its albumen, i.e., the knot; but if it is found on its yolk, even the rest of the egg is forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the decay has spread through all of it. Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said to Rav Ashi: A tanna taught the opposite before Abaye, that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its yolk, and it is Abaye that corrected it in this manner.
He came and found Dubiel the ministering angel of the Persians holding the letter in his hand. Gabriel wanted to take the letter from him, but Dubiel swallowed it. Some say the letter was written, but it was not signed. Some say it was also signed, but when he swallowed it, the signature was erased. The Gemara comments: This is why, in the kingdom of Persia, there are those who pay taxes and there are those who do not pay taxes, as the decree was not finalized. It also states there: “And when I depart from him, the prince of Greece comes” (Daniel 10:20). Gabriel screamed and screamed that the kings of Greece should not rule over the Jews, but no one listened to him.
They then brought Dubiel, the ministering angel of the Persians and put him in the place of [baḥarikei] Gabriel and he served for twenty-one days. As it is written: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood opposed to me for twenty-one days, but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me and I remained there beside the kings of Persia” (Daniel 10:13). Corresponding to those twenty-one days, they gave him, the ministering angel of Persia, twenty-one kings who ruled and the seaport of Mashhig.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the angel Duma, who oversees the dead, comes beforehand and announces to them that a particular individual will arrive the next day, but they themselves do not know.
Rabba said to Rav Naḥman: What happens to the souls of middling people, who are neither righteous nor wicked? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is good that you asked me this question, for even if I were dead I would not have been able to tell you that. As Shmuel said as follows: These and those, the souls of the wicked and of the middling people, are handed over to Duma, the angel in charge of spirits. But these, the souls of the middling people, have rest, and these, the souls of the wicked, do not have rest. Rav Mari said: Even the bodies of the righteous will not be preserved and will become dust, as it is written: “And the dust returns to the earth as it was” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).
He said to him: I shepherd them, not releasing them until the years of the generation are completed, and then I pass them on to the angel Duma who oversees the souls of the dead. Rav Beivai said to him: Ultimately, what do you do with his extra years, those taken away from this individual? The Angel of Death said to him: If there is a Torah scholar who disregards his personal matters, i.e., who overlooks the insults of those who wrong him, I add those years to him and he becomes the deceased’s replacement for that time.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Obadiah come, who dwells among two wicked ones, Ahab and Jezebel, but did not learn from their actions; and he will prophesy concerning Esau the wicked, the progenitor of Edom, who dwelled among two righteous ones, Isaac and Rebekkah, but did not learn from their actions. Efrayim Miksha’a, a student of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: Obadiah was an Edomite convert. Consequently, he prophesied with regard to Edom. And this is as people say: From and within the forest comes the ax to it, as the handle for the ax that chops the tree is from the forest itself.
Efrayim Miksha’a, disciple of Rabbi Meir, says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Abraham, our forefather, would eat non-sacred food only when he was in a state of ritual purity, i.e., he treated his food as though it were consecrated to God. And Sarah, our foremother, menstruated that day, which rendered the baked goods ritually impure, preventing Abraham from handling them. Therefore, they could not serve bread to their guests.
Efrayim the scribe, a student of Reish Lakish, says in the name of Reish Lakish: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. They stated this case before the Persian King Shapur, who expressed an interest in this legal issue, and he said to them: Let us offer praise [apiryon] to Rabbi Shimon. He too felt that this was the best resolution.
However, with regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the time of haste, as it is written: “You will eat it in haste for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya held: What is the meaning of haste? It is the haste of the Egyptians at midnight, as they hurried to the houses of the people of Israel to send them away, in fear of the plague of the firstborn.
Since the last topic discussed in the Gemara revolved around the exodus from Egypt, the Gemara cites additional aggadic midrash on that subject. With regard to the verse: “Speak, please [na] in the ears of the people, and they should borrow, every man from his fellow and every woman from her fellow, silver and gold vessels” (Exodus 11:2), the word please [na] is unclear. The students of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Please [na] is nothing more than an expression of supplication. Why would God employ an expression of supplication in approaching Israel? The Gemara explains that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: I beseech you, go and tell Israel: I beseech you; borrow vessels of silver and vessels of gold from the Egyptians in order to fulfill the promise I made to Abraham in the “Covenant between the Pieces,” so that
With regard to the spoils taken from Egypt described in the verse: “And the Lord gave the nation grace in the eyes of Egypt, and they gave them what they requested and they emptied Egypt” (Exodus 12:36), Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that the Egyptians gave them what they requested against their will. There is a dispute with regard to the question: Against whose will? Some say it was given against the will of the Egyptians, and some say it was given against the will of Israel. The proponent of each position cites support for his opinion.
The Gemara responds: The Torah states that the manna, the dough of the wilderness, was “an omer a head” (Exodus 16:16). A later verse elaborates on that measure, as it is written: “And an omer is the tenth part of an eifa” (Exodus 16:36). An eifa is three se’a, which are eighteen kav or seventy-two log. An omer is one-tenth of this measure. From here, this calculation, Sages said that dough prepared from seven quarters of a kav of flour and more is obligated in Ḥalla. This is equal to six quarter-kav of the Jerusalem measure, which is five quarter-kav of the Tzippori measure.
GEMARA: The Sage Eifa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, who prohibits a man from entering into levirate marriage with a woman whom his brother had divorced and remarried? It is because she was forbidden to him at one time; when the first brother divorced her, she became forbidden to the second brother due to her status as the first brother’s ex-wife. A husband’s relatives are forbidden to the wife even after death or divorce. However, the mitzva of levirate marriage grants a special exemption from the prohibition against marrying one’s brother’s wife. In this case, if the first brother had died while they were still divorced, the mitzva of levirate marriage would not have applied, and she would have been forbidden to him. The Sages said to Eifa: If that is so, she should also not require Ḥalitza, since she is a forbidden relative.
And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Elazar also exempts her from Ḥalitza, isn’t it taught in a baraita: It was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that she performs Ḥalitza? Rather, Eifa said: I do not know the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
Rav Naḥman said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say that he called him black pot [patya], a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: From me and from you, clarification of this halakha will be concluded. The mishna is referring to a case where the partners are exacting with each other. Therefore, presumably, neither partner will allow his half of the slave to partake from his partner’s Paschal lamb. The baraita is referring to a case where they are not exacting with each other. In that case, the slave may eat from the Paschal lamb of whichever partner he chooses.
Rav Naḥman responded to Eina the Elder and said to him: Eina the Elder, and some say that he said to him: Blackened pot, i.e., my colleague in Torah, who has toiled and blackened his face in Torah study, from me and from you the matter may be concluded, i.e., the explanation lies in a combination of our two statements. For Rahab converted and married Joshua, and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But did Joshua have any descendants? But isn’t it written in the genealogical list of the tribe of Ephraim: “Nun his son, Joshua his son” (I Chronicles 7:27)? The listing does not continue any further, implying that Joshua had no sons. The Gemara answers: Indeed, he did not have sons, but he did have daughters.
What song did they recite? “Praise the Lord from the earth, sea monsters and all depths…fruit trees and all cedars…praise the Lord” (Psalms 148:7–14). An angel responded from the fire, saying: This is the very Design of the Divine Chariot, just as you expounded. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai stood and kissed Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh on his head, and said: Blessed be God, Lord of Israel, who gave our father Abraham a son like you, who knows how to understand, investigate, and expound the Design of the Divine Chariot. There are some who expound the Torah’s verses well but do not fulfill its imperatives well, and there are some who fulfill its imperatives well but do not expound its verses well, whereas you expound its verses well and fulfill its imperatives well. Happy are you, our father Abraham, that Elazar ben Arakh came from your loins.
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one who repents of the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse does not die? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Rabbi Elazar ben Durdayya that he was so promiscuous that he did not leave one prostitute in the world with whom he did not engage in sexual intercourse. Once, he heard that there was one prostitute in one of the cities overseas who would take a purse full of dinars as her payment. He took a purse full of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her. When they were engaged in the matters to which they were accustomed, a euphemism for intercourse, she passed wind and said: Just as this passed wind will not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Durdayya will not be accepted in repentance, even if he were to try to repent.
And what is the source for one who demeans the ritual of washing of the hands? We learned later in the same mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben Ḥanokh, because he doubted and demeaned the rabbinic ordinance of washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent instructions and they placed a large rock upon his coffin in order to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in a state of ostracism, the court stones his coffin, as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dilemma whether the identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law or by rabbinic law is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One does not testify on the basis of a mole on the body of the deceased to determine the identity of a man who died and permit his wife to remarry. And Elazar ben Mahavai says: One testifies to identify the corpse on the basis of a mole. What, is it not with regard to this matter that they disagree; as the first tanna holds that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by rabbinic law and therefore, testimony concerning those marks cannot dissolve a marriage by Torah law; and Elazar ben Mahavai holds that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law.
§ Elazar ben Matya says: If my father says: Give me water, and there is a mitzva for me to perform at the same time, I set aside the honor of my father and perform the mitzva, as my father and I are both obligated in the mitzva. Isi ben Yehuda says: If it is possible for this mitzva to be performed by others, let it be performed by others, and he should go and attend to the honor due to his father, as the honor of his father is his obligation alone. Rav Mattana says: The halakha with regard to this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps locusts, cicadas, hornets, or mosquitoes on Shabbat is liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Not every insect is the same in this matter. If one traps any insect whose species is typically trapped for personal use, he is liable, and if one traps any insect whose species is typically not trapped for personal use, he is exempt. It was taught in anotherbaraita: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt. Since it is cold at that time, the locusts are paralyzed. If one traps them when it is hot, he is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: If the locusts were swarming, one is exempt for trapping them, because no effort is necessary to apprehend them. A dilemma was raised before them: Does the statement of Elazar ben Mehavai apply to the first clause of the baraita, ruling stringently that one is liable for trapping locusts even when there is dew unless they are swarming; or does it apply to the latter clause of the baraita, ruling leniently that one is exempt when trapping locusts, even in the heat when they are swarming? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a source that addresses the point explicitly: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt; one who traps locusts when it is hot is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: Even when it is hot, if they were swarming, one is exempt.
Similarly, the Sages taught: If a man experienced an emission that could render him a zav, one attributes the emission not to his being a zav but perhaps to a different cause, e.g., to food, or to all kinds of food, i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. Elazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: During the days that a zav is examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, one feeds him neither foods represented by the acrostic: Ḥet, gimmel, beit, yod, nor foods represented by the acrostic: Gimmel, beit, mem, nor any food items that might bring him to impurity caused by an emission. The Gemara explains: Not Ḥet, gimmel, beit, yod means neither milk [Ḥalav], nor cheese [gevina], nor egg [beitza], nor wine [yayin]. And not gimmel, beit, mem means neither soup of pounded beans [mei gerisin], nor fatty meat [basar], nor small fish pickled in brine [muryas].
And there was one person present, a scoffer, a man of an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, the Sages, are against you. In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: And what shall I do to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: Have them stand by wearing the frontplate between your eyes. Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. He had the Pharisees stand by wearing the frontplate between his eyes.
And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel. In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. But you are a king and a High Priest. Is this your judgment as well? Yannai replied: And what should I do? Elazar responded: If you listen to my advice, crush them. Yannai countered: But what will become of the Torah? He retorted: Behold, it is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study. We have no need for the Sages.
The Gemara interjects: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into Yannai, as he should have said to Elazar ben Po’ira: This works out well with regard to the Written Torah, as it can be studied by all on their own, but what will become of the Oral Torah? The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The baraita continues: Immediately, the evil arose and caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate of Torah until Shimon ben Shata? came and restored the Torah to its former glory. This completes the baraita.
Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilum says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikom says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.
Elazar ben Yehuda of Avelim says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikos would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves of small livestock, or the skin of the head of a young calf, or the skin beneath the tail, or any of the skins that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, which means to include the skin of the womb, if one has intent to burn one of them outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, and if one’s intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, he renders it piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.
§ The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And Elazar the scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.
The mishna further states: From the time when murderers proliferated, the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified. The ritual was performed only when the identity of the murderer was completely unknown. Once there were many known murderers, the conditions for the performance of the ritual were no longer present, as the probable identity of the murderer was known. From the time when Eliezer ben Dinai, who was also called Teḥina ben Perisha, came, they renamed him: Son of a murderer. This is an example of a publicly known murderer.
Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,
That was also taught in the following baraita: Eliezer of Biriyya says: Those who dwell in huts are like those who dwell in graves. And with regard to one who marries their daughters, the verse says: “Cursed be he who sleeps with any manner of beast” (Deuteronomy 27:21).
Incidental to the mention of the elevated significance of the night watches, the Gemara cites a related story: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I was once walking along the road when I entered the ruins of an old, abandoned building among the ruins of Jerusalem in order to pray. I noticed that Elijah, of blessed memory, came and guarded the entrance for me and waited at the entrance until I finished my prayer. When I finished praying and exited the ruin, Elijah said to me, deferentially as one would address a rabbi: Greetings to you, my rabbi. I answered him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my teacher. And Elijah said to me: My son, why did you enter this ruin? I said to him: In order to pray. And Elijah said to me: You should have prayed on the road. And I said to him: I was unable to pray along the road, because I was afraid that I might be interrupted by travelers and would be unable to focus. Elijah said to me: You should have recited the abbreviated prayer instituted for just such circumstances.
This discussion in the Gemara concludes with a Tosefta that arrives at a hierarchy of angels based on the number of flights required by each to arrive at his destination. It was taught in a Tosefta: Michael, as stated above, in one flight; Gabriel, in two flights; Elijah the Prophet, in four flights; and the Angel of Death, in eight flights. During a time of plague, however, when the Angel of Death seems ubiquitous, he arrives everywhere in one flight.
To reinforce the gravity of this prohibition, the Gemara relates: A certain individual prayed behind the synagogue and did not turn to face the synagogue.Elijah the Prophet passed by and he saw him. He appeared to him as an Arab [taya’a]. Elijah said: “This is how [kadu bar] you stand before your Master?” Elijah drew a sword and killed him.
The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit an ordinance issued by the students of Shammai and Hillel? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that a court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? And furthermore, doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.
Rava said to him: This is an individual opinion, and we do not hold in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the father of Rabbi Tzadok died in the city of Ginzak, and they informed him of his father’s passing only after three years. He came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders with him what he should do. And Elisha ben Avuya said to him: Observe the rites of mourning for seven and thirty days. And when the son of Rabbi Aḥiyya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi Aḥiyya was informed about his passing a long time afterward, he sat in mourning for seven and thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that this opinion was held only by a few individual Sages, but it was not generally accepted.
Upon hearing this, Elisha ben Avuya said: Since that man, meaning himself, has been banished from that world, let him go out and enjoy this world. Aḥer went astray. He went and found a prostitute and solicited her for intercourse. She said to him: And are you not Elisha ben Avuya? Shall a person of your stature perform such an act? He uprooted a radish from a patch of radishes on Shabbat and gave it to her, to demonstrate that he no longer observed the Torah. The prostitute said: He is other than he was. He is not the same Elisha ben Avuya, he is Aḥer, other.
GEMARA: Since doves’ wings were mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara cites a related story: Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.
The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.
The Gemara cites proof that the mitzva of phylacteries was not fulfilled properly at the time of the decrees, based upon an incident related to the following halakha. As Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. What is included in the requirement to have a clean body? Abaye said: That one may not pass wind in them. Rava said: That one may not sleep in them.
The third cry was: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Elishama ben Pikai, the student of Pineḥas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, as he is worthy.
§ The mishna teaches: And Hadrianic earthenware is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is Hadrianic earthenware? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is earthenware of Emperor Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an expanse of virgin soil that no man had ever tilled before, and Hadrian tilled it and planted grapevines in it, which yielded wine of the highest quality. And they placed this wine in white jugs, and the jugs absorbed the wine. And they would break the jugs into shards and carry the shards with them, and anywhere that they stopped, they soaked these shards in water and drank the water. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: And our first-rate wine is like the wine produced by the third usage of their Hadrianic earthenware.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ziyyunin], and they are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin; gimmel and tzadi. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter Ḥet and they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.
The Gemara relates: Abba bar Marta, who is Abba bar Manyomi, owed money to members of the Exilarch’s household. They brought him to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat and they tormented him to force him to pay. There was spittle there. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: Bring me a vessel and place it over the spittle so that people will not step on it. Abba bar Manyomi said to them: You need not do so, as Rav Yehuda said as follows: With regard to spittle, one may trample it innocently. The Exilarch said to the members of his household: He is a Torah scholar, leave him alone.
Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel: If you find them, do not say to the members of the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this baraita of an arched gateway, as it is proof against my opinion.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Naḥman permit this for the members of the Exilarch’s household? The Gemara answers: The Exilarch’s household is different, since people employed by them do not renege out of fear of the consequences. Consequently, if a woman from that household arranges a wet nurse for her child, it is certain that the wet nurse will keep her commitment, whereas with other people there is a danger that if the mother remarries the child might be left without anyone to feed him.
The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel the Elder said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I am from the family of Dorketi, who have neither menstrual blood nor blood from the rupture of the hymen. Rabban Gamliel investigated among her relatives to determine whether the claim with regard to her family was true, and discovered that the truth was in accordance with her statement. He said to him: Go take possession of your acquisition. Happy are you that you were privileged to marry a member of the Dorketi family, as those forms of blood will never pose a problem for you.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn’t your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his son to marry into the family of one of the Sages; and he smeared oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of the wedding ceremony.
The Gemara cites a related incident: Ravina arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rav Ḥanina, i.e., to marry Rav Ḥanina’s daughter. Rav Ḥanina said to Ravina: Does the Master hold that it is appropriate to write the marriage contract as stating that the wedding will take place in four days, i.e., on Wednesday? Ravina said: Yes. When the fourth day, i.e., Wednesday arrived, he waited until another fourth day before marrying her, until the following Wednesday, i.e., he delayed seven days after that day when he had planned to marry her.
This dispute is parallel to another dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna in tractate Arakhin: The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves; they were Israelites from the family of the House of Happegarim and the family of the House of Tzipperaya. And they were from the city of Emma’um, and their lineage was sufficiently distinguished that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood.
This dispute is parallel to another dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna in tractate Arakhin: The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves; they were Israelites from the family of the House of Happegarim and the family of the House of Tzipperaya. And they were from the city of Emma’um, and their lineage was sufficiently distinguished that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood.
The Gemara recounts: An incident occurred with the tenant farmers of Rav Zevid. One stole a kav of barley, and Rav Zevid disqualified him from bearing witness, and one stole a cluster of dates, and he disqualified him. The reason for their disqualification is that the quantity of produce they stole is not considered a small amount.
Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving my father, Ḥalafta, who went to the esteemed Rabban Gamliel of Yavne in Tiberias, where he found him sitting at the table of Yoḥanan HaNazuf and in his hand there was a translation of the book of Job, and he was reading from it. Yoḥanan said to Rabban Gamliel of Yavne: I remember Rabban Gamliel, your father’s father, who was standing on top of a step on the Temple Mount. And they brought before him a translation of the book of Job, and he said to the builder: Bury this book under the course of bricks. When he heard of that incident, Rabban Gamliel of Yavne ordered that it be buried and he buried it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that on the Temple Mount they overturned a large bowl of mortar on it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There are two responses to this that prove that it did not happen: One, from where would they get mortar on the Temple Mount? Construction on the Temple Mount was performed with other materials, not with mortar. And furthermore, is it permitted to actively destroy even sacred writings that are not read, with one’s hands? Rather, at the very least they leave them in a neglected place, where they are likely to decompose quickly, and they decay on their own. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Who are the tanna’im who dispute this halakha according to Rav Huna?
As it is taught in the Tosefta (Bava Batra 2:4) that Rabbi Yosei said: When father Ḥalafta went to study Torah with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, and some say that he said: When Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri went to study Torah with father
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: My father, Ḥalafta, concedes to Akavya ben Mahalalel in this case of a slaughtered firstborn that use of the wool is permitted. Indeed [aval], the Rabbis said explicitly: One places it in a compartment, as perhaps there is a hope that use of the wool will ultimately be permitted, since if he slaughters the animal all agree that use of the wool is permitted. But if the animal dies by other means, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems use of the wool permitted and the Rabbis deem it prohibited.
Ravina said: Samma bar Ḥilkai said to me that the father of bar Abuveram, and some say that it was the brother of bar Abuveram, raises a difficulty: And is blood spurting superior to the requirement of the Rabbis as an indication of life? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: It is permitted only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail?
§ Come and hear a challenge to the firsthalakhaof Rabbi Ḥiyya, as the father of Rabbi Aptoriki taught in a baraita: If one says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: Nothing of yours is in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars in his possession that he owes the plaintiff, one might have thought that he should take an oath about the remainder.
Apropos this fundamental halakha, the father of Rabbi Avin taught a baraita: Not only this, that a daily offering slaughtered before dawn is disqualified and burned, did they say; rather, even in the case of the pinching of the neck of a bird and the taking of the handful of a meal-offering that are performed at night, these items must be burned. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, a bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering is disqualified if pinched before dawn; what was, was. The situation can no longer be remedied, and the bird must be burned. However, why should the handful of a meal-offering be burned?
Rava said: Rabbi Zeira, who raises the objection, raises the objection well. And the father of Rabbi Avin is also stating a baraita. Therefore, his opinion cannot be dismissed. At the same time, the contradiction between the baraita and the mishna must be resolved. And the tanna of the baraitamaintains: A service performed at night is not considered premature. If there is a requirement to perform a certain action during the day but one performed it the night before, it is not considered as though he did not perform it at its appointed time, because the day and the night before it are considered a single unit. Therefore, placing the shewbread on the table before dawn disqualifies it. However, a service performed a day earlier is considered premature. Therefore, the table does not consecrate shewbread placed on it a day before Shabbat, and all the more so a week before Shabbat.
The Gemara asks: And according to this version of the halakhathat the father of Rabbi Avin taught (Tosefta 4:5): Initially the Sages would say that one who renders another person’s food impure and one who pours another’s wine as a libation before an idol are subject to a fine, and later they returned to say that even one who mixesteruma with another person’s non-sacred produce is liable to pay a fine, why do I need all these cases? In this version, the halakha of one who mixes was added later. After the halakhot concerning one who renders another person’s food impure and one who pours another’s wine were taught, why could the halakha of one who mixes not be derived from those halakhot?
Rava said to him: This is an individual opinion, and we do not hold in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the father of Rabbi Tzadok died in the city of Ginzak, and they informed him of his father’s passing only after three years. He came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders with him what he should do. And Elisha ben Avuya said to him: Observe the rites of mourning for seven and thirty days. And when the son of Rabbi Aḥiyya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi Aḥiyya was informed about his passing a long time afterward, he sat in mourning for seven and thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that this opinion was held only by a few individual Sages, but it was not generally accepted.
The Gemara responds: Rather, one must say that the question was asked in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna. As the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba teaches in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves left the Temple courtyard between the slaughtering of the offering and the sprinkling of its blood, and then the priest sprinkled the blood of the sheep with the intent that their meat would be eaten beyond their designated time, the sheep are rendered piggul. With regard to the loaves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul. Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul.
The Gemara answers: Thatbaraitaalso represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred in which the father of Rabbi Yitzḥak the priest died in Ginzak, and they came and informed him after three years had passed, and he came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Elisha and four Elders who were with him whether he was permitted to become ritually impure by transferring his father’s remains to his ancestral grave, as was the custom.
The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes for thirteen years. When the head tax collector of the river region would come to the city, Rabbi Zeira’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. When he would see the ordinary people of the city, he would say to them: Beware, as the head tax collector of the river region is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, i.e., take one’s money, before the son, and the son before the father.
Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Raḥel, cites a different opinion with regard to the halakha of driving a laden animal on Shabbat, and some say that he was the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel and stated this halakha. As an aside, the Gemara comments: According to the latter version above, that Rava was the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel, the fact that Rav needed to validate the status of Rav Mari bar Raḥel and only then appoint him as an official [pursei] of Babylonia is difficult. This incident teaches that Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was not Jewish, and before he could be appointed his status required validation through the fact that his mother was Jewish. If Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was a sage named Rava, why was it necessary to validate his status by means of his mother’s lineage? The Gemara answers: Perhaps there were two people named Mari bar Raḥel. One was the son of a convert and a Jewish mother, and the other was the son of a Sage named Rava.
The Gemara asks: Those additional tears that are made in honor of one’s father or mother, may they be properly mended at the end of the son’s period of mourning, or may they not be properly mended, like the tear made for one’s father or mother at the most intense moment of grief? The Gemara answers: They disagree about this issue, the father of Rav Oshaya and bar Kappara. One said: They may not be mended, and one said: They may be mended.
The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa’s father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa’s father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa’s father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.
The father of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama asked of Rabba bar Natan: From where is this matter that the Sages stated derived: One who is liable to be executed with two different court-imposed death penalties is sentenced to the more severe form of execution? Rabba bar Natan answered: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he begets a violent son, a shedder of blood, who does to a brother any of these. And he had not done any of these, for he has eaten upon the mountains and defiled his neighbor’s wife, has wronged the poor and needy, has taken by robbery, does not return collateral, and has lifted his eyes toward the idols, has committed abomination” (Ezekiel 18:10–12).
Ameimar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda that there is a halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about that statement of Rav Naḥman, who disagrees with Rav Yehuda and says that there is no such halakha? Ameimar said to him: I do not know of it, that is to say, I do not maintain this opinion. The Gemara asks: And is the halakhanot in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman? But it happened that the father of Ravin bar Ḥinnana and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana died and left them two maidservants, one of whom knew how to bake and to cook, and the other of whom knew how to spin and to weave. One of the brothers suggested that each of them take one of the maidservants entirely for himself and forfeit his rights to the other maidservant. They came before Rava and he said to them: There is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price.
With regard to this issue, the father of Shmuel, Abba ben Abba, sent a letter to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Teach us, our Rabbi. How should one recite the order of havdala when a Festival occurs after Shabbat? Rabbi sent him the following response: This is what Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said, who said it in the name of his father, who himself said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: The proper order of the blessings is nun, heh, yod, kuf: Candle [ner], havdala, wine [yayin], and kiddush.
And Levi said: It is prohibited to use the etrog even on the eighth day. The father of Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use the etrog on the seventh day, and it is permitted on the eighth day. The Gemara notes that ultimately, the father of Shmuel reconsidered his opinion and assumed the opinion of Levi. Rabbi Zeira, however, assumed the opinion of the father of Shmuel, as Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to an etrog that was rendered unfit for any reason, it is prohibited to eat it all seven days, as it was set aside for the mitzva until the end of the Festival.
The Gemara asks: Where in Babylonia does the Divine Presence reside? Abaye said: In the ancient synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. And do not say that the Divine Presence resided here and there, i.e., in both places simultaneously. Rather, at times it resided here in Huzal and at times there in Neharde’a. Abaye said: I have a blessing coming to me, for whenever I am within a distance of a parasang from one of those synagogues, I go in and pray there, due to the special honor and sanctity attached to them. It was related that the father of Shmuel and Levi were once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. The Divine Presence came and they heard a loud sound, so they arose and left.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he derive from this distinction between “the daughter” and “and the daughter”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which the father of Shmuel bar Avin taught in a baraita: Since we find that the verse differentiates with regard to male priests between unblemished priests and blemished priests, as only unblemished priests may perform the Temple service, one might have thought we should differentiate between their daughters as well, and rule that the daughter of a blemished priest should not be sentenced to execution by burning for adultery. Therefore, instead of stating: “The daughter,” the verse states: “And the daughter,” to include the daughter of a blemished priest.
Shin, yod, tzadi, yod, ayin, tzadi, beit, yod is a mnemonic for the statements that follow. The Gemara adds: And now that the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak has taught that these are deemed old phylacteries: Any that have straps that are permanently tied in the manner of phylacteries, and new phylacteries are those that have straps that are not tied, the conclusion is that everyone agrees that a person does not exert himself to fashion an amulet similar to phylacteries or string-like ritual fringes. They disagree with regard to new phylacteries that are not tied properly and cannot be donned in a manner typical of a weekday. The reason is that tying a permanent knot on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, these phylacteries may not be donned, and Rabbi Zeira’s opinion is accepted.
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tanḥum said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naḥum, the brother of the mother of Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: It does not mention the word good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf.
The Gemara returns to the people of the Galilee, who are not precise in their speech. What is the meaning of this? The Gemara cites examples: As it was taught in a baraitathat there was a certain person from the Galilee who would walk and say to people: Who has amar? Who has amar? They said to him: Foolish Galilean, what do you mean? Galileans did not pronounce the guttural letters properly, so it was unclear whether he sought a donkey [Ḥamor] to ride, or wine [Ḥamar] to drink, wool [amar] to wear, or a lamb [imar] to slaughter. This is an example of the lack of precision in the Galileans’ speech.
Having discussed wise speech and the wisdom of Jewish women, the Gemara cites the following story: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was walking along the way, and met Berurya. He said to her: On which path shall we walk in order to get to Lod? She said to him: Foolish Galilean, didn’t the Sages say: Do not talk much with women? You should have said your question more succinctly: Which way to Lod?
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.
In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. And if you say that Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?
and reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. My son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamliel should be the Nasi. Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva.
§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My son Shimon is a Sage; my son Gamliel should be the Nasi. What was he saying, i.e., what did he mean by these remarks? The Gemara explains: This is what he was saying: Although my son Shimon is a greater Sage, my son Gamliel should be the Nasi.
The Gemara asks: And are the ministering angels not familiar with the Aramaic language? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 13:5): Yoḥanan the High Priest heard a Divine Voice emerging from the House of the Holy of Holies that was saying: The youth who went to wage war in Antokhya have been victorious. And there was another incident involving Shimon HaTzaddik, who heard a Divine Voice emerging from the House of the Holy of Holies that was saying: The decree that the enemy intended to bring against the Temple is annulled, and Gaskalgas, Caligula, has been killed and his decrees have been voided. And people wrote down that time that the Divine Voice was heard, and later found that it matched exactly the moment that Caligula was killed. The Gemara concludes: And this Divine Voice was speaking in the Aramaic language.
Mar Ukva sent word to him again: They are tormenting me a great deal and I cannot stand them. Rabbi Elazar sent to him in response: “Resign yourself to the Lord, and wait patiently [hitḥolel] for Him; do not fret yourself because of he who prospers in his way, because of the man who brings wicked devices to pass” (Psalms 37:7). This verse indicates: “Resign yourself to the Lord,” i.e., do not do anything, and He will strike them down as many corpses [Ḥalalim]. Rise before and stay later than them in your visits to the study hall, and they will disappear on their own. The Gemara relates: The matter emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Elazar, and Geneiva, Mar Ukva’s tormentor, was placed in a neck iron [kolar], as one sentenced by the government.
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were sitting, and Geneiva passed by them. One said to the other: Let us stand before him, as he is a son of the Torah. The other said to him: Shall we stand before a quarrelsome person? In the meantime, Geneiva came to them and said to them: With what were you dealing when you were sitting together? They said to him: We were dealing with winds.
§ With regard to the matter of doubling one’s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: “Through me kings rule” (Proverbs 8:15).
The Gemara asks: In a case of the certain presence of urine, until when and in what state does its presence preclude one from uttering sacred matters? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: As long as it is wet enough to moisten the hands of one who touches it. And so too Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As long as it moistens. And so too Ulla said: As long as it moistens. Geniva in the name of Rav said: It is forbidden as long as its mark is apparent on the ground.
Rav Yosef said: May God, his Master, forgive Geniva, as Rav could have said no such thing. Now, in the case of feces, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Once its surface has dried sufficiently to form a crust, one is permitted to utter sacred matters opposite it; is it necessary to say that opposite urine it is permitted once it dries?
The Gemara relates: Rav happened by the house of the Sage, Geniva, and he prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was praying behind Rav, and Rav finished his prayer but did not take three steps back and interrupt the prayer of Rabbi Yirmeya. Derive from this incident threehalakhot: Derive from this that one may pray the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. And derive from this that a student may pray behind his rabbi. And derive from this that it is prohibited to pass before those who are praying.
The Gemara relates that a certain heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will come to life. The way of the world is that those who are alive die. How can you say that the dead will come to life? Geviha ben Pesisa said to him: Woe unto you, the wicked, as you say: The dead will not come to life. If those who were not in existence come to life, is it not reasonable all the more so that those who were once alive will come to life again? The heretic said to Geviha ben Pesisa angrily: You called me wicked? If I stand, I will kick you and flatten your hump, as Geviha ben Pesisa was a hunchback. Geviha ben Pesisa said to him jocularly: If you do so, you will be called an expert doctor and will take high wages for your services.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.
Geviha ben Pesisa said to the Sages: Give me permission and I will go and deliberate with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they will defeat me, say to them: You have defeated an ordinary person from among us, and until you overcome our Sages, it is no victory. And if I will defeat them, say to them: The Torah of Moses, our teacher, defeated you, and attribute no significance to me. The Sages gave him permission, and he went and deliberated with them.
The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Manyumi was standing before Rav Naḥman, Rav Naḥman erred and did not mention the special formula for Shabbat in Grace after Meals,
The Gemara relates: Rav Giddel bar Menashe from the town of Birei DeNeresh taught in a public lecture that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. The next year everyone went out and mixed vinegar with water and drank vinegar on Yom Kippur. Rav Giddel heard this and became angry with them for their actions. He said: Say that I said one is not liable for drinking vinegar only after the fact; however, did I say it is permitted to drink it ab initio? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement with regard to one who drinks a little, but did I say it is permitted to drink a lot? Furthermore: Say that I said my statement in reference to pure vinegar, which is very strong, but did I say anything about diluted vinegar? That is certainly prohibited.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to the age when a minor can sell property inherited from his father, during the time, i.e., during his twentieth year, is considered as before the time when it is permitted, and he cannot sell until the end of his twentieth year. And the halakha is in accordance with the ruling that Rava sent to Giddel bar Menashe, that a child who has reached his majority and understands the nature of business negotiations can sell land.
§ Giddel bar Menashya sent an inquiry to Rava: Let our teacher instruct us: With regard to a girl who is fourteen years and one day old who understands the nature of business negotiations, what is the halakha? Can she sell property that she inherited from her father? Rava sent a reply to Giddel bar Menashya: If she understands the nature of business negotiations her purchase is a valid purchase and her sale is a valid sale.
The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, as it was inferred from the following incident. There was a certain person who was under twenty years old and understood business negotiations who went and sold his father’s property, in accordance with the ruling that Rava sent to Giddel bar Menashya, and the case came before Rava. The seller’s relatives said to the one who sold the property: Go eat dates and throw the pits into Rava’s house, in order to prove to Rava that their relative was not mentally competent. He did so. Rava said to them: His sale is not a valid sale.
§ The Gemara relates: Giddel bar Minyumi had a protest to lodge with regard to his property. He found Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav and Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tuvi, who were sitting, and he protested before them. After a year, he came to them again to protest. They said to him: You do not need to do so; this is what Rav says: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest. And there are those who say that Ḥiyya bar Rav said to him, not in the name of Rav: Once the owner protested in the first year, he no longer needs to protest.
It is related that Giddel bar Re’ilai received land from the residents of a certain valley in exchange for payment of the land tax [taska]. All of the residents of the valley would jointly pay the land tax. After some of the residents had gone away, those who remained authorized Giddel bar Re’ilai to use the land of the absentee owners, on condition that Giddel would pay the land tax on their behalf. Giddel gave the money for three years in advance, although the tax was ordinarily paid annually. Eventually, after the first year, the prior owners came and said to Giddel: With regard to the first year for which you paid the tax, you have already consumed the produce. Now we will pay the taxes and we will consume the produce, and you shall have no further rights to it.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I teach thisbaraita in a precise manner, and I do not mention Giddul bar Menashya, nor Giddul bar Minyumei, but rather the plain name Giddul, without any identifying moniker. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference in Rav Giddel’s name? The Gemara answers: To raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. Since it is not clear exactly which Sage issued this ruling, it is impossible to prove that he reversed or contradicted his opinion in a later statement.
Upon hearing Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: From where does Yehuda know thishalakha? Actually, I taught thishalakhato Giddul in Rav’s name and Giddul, in turn, taught it to Rabbi Yehuda. But Giddul corrupted my statement, as this is how I said it to him: An Israelite is deemed credible to say: I gave this firstborn animal to a priest with its blemish already inflicted upon it, and it may be slaughtered and eaten.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I teach thisbaraita in a precise manner, and I do not mention Giddul bar Menashya, nor Giddul bar Minyumei, but rather the plain name Giddul, without any identifying moniker. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference in Rav Giddel’s name? The Gemara answers: To raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. Since it is not clear exactly which Sage issued this ruling, it is impossible to prove that he reversed or contradicted his opinion in a later statement.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I teach thisbaraita in a precise manner, and I do not mention Giddul bar Menashya, nor Giddul bar Minyumei, but rather the plain name Giddul, without any identifying moniker. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference in Rav Giddel’s name? The Gemara answers: To raise a contradiction between one of his rulings and another one of his rulings. Since it is not clear exactly which Sage issued this ruling, it is impossible to prove that he reversed or contradicted his opinion in a later statement.
§ The Gemara relates: A man named Giddul bar Re’ilai sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found that she was sitting and weaving [navla]. He said to her: This is your bill of divorce. She said to him: At least go away from here now and come tomorrow to give me the bill of divorce. The agent went to Giddul bar Re’ilai and told him what had occurred. Giddul bar Re’ilai opened his mouth and said: Blessed is He Who is good and does good, as he was happy that the bill of divorce was not delivered.
The Gemara relates that when a case of dissolving a vow was brought before Ḥiyya bar Rav, he would shoot an arrow [gira] and examine the vow at the same time. In other words, he would not examine the case in great depth, but would immediately dissolve it. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit to review the vow and stand immediately, without conducting a comprehensive examination.
With regard to a remedy for a stinging pain [gira], let him bring a stone called an arrow of Lilith, and let him turn it upside down. And let him pour water on it and drink it. And if he is not able to do that, let him bring water from which a dog drank at night, and let him be careful about leaving the water uncovered at night, in case a snake drank from it and left its venom in the water. A remedy for drinking uncovered water is to drink a quarter-log[anpaka] of undiluted wine.
The Gemara relates: Antoninus had a certain daughter whose name was Gira, who performed a prohibited action, i.e., she engaged in promiscuous intercourse. Antoninus sent a rocket plant [gargira] to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, to allude to the fact that Gira had acted promiscuously [gar]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him coriander [kusbarta], which Antoninus understood as a message to kill [kos] his daughter [barta], as she was liable to receive the death penalty for her actions. Antoninus sent him leeks [karti] to say: I will be cut off [karet] if I do so. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then sent him lettuce [Ḥasa], i.e., Antoninus should have mercy [Ḥas] on her.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
and when the governor [parashtevina] of Pumbedita would stand next to Adda the attendant, he would reach only half of his height. And when everyone else in the world would stand next to the governor of Pumbedita, they would reach only his loins [Ḥartzeih].
This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes” (Genesis 49:10). The term “Shiloh” is understood as a reference to the Messiah, and therefore the verse is interpreted as delineating the authority of Jewish rulers during the exile, before the Messiah comes. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah”; these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia, who are empowered by the government and consequently subjugate the Jewish people as with a scepter. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet”; These are the grandchildren of Hillel the Elder who hold the position of Nasi and teach Torah in public, but do not have authority to actually enforce their judgments.
§ The Gemara cites another of Rav Ḥiyya bar Avuya’s statements. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya says: It was written on the skull of Jehoiakim king of Judea: This and yet another, indicating that he will suffer a punishment in addition to the punishment that he already received. The Gemara relates: The grandfather of Rabbi Perida, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avuya, found a skull that was cast at the gates of Jerusalem, and upon it was written: This and yet another. He buried it, and it then emerged [navug] from beneath the soil. He buried it and it then emerged from beneath the soil again. He said: This is the skull of Jehoiakim, as it is written in his regard: “With the burial of a donkey he shall be buried, drawn and cast beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19). He will find no rest in a grave.
§ The Gemara relates an incident that involves the aforementioned Rabbi Perida. The Sages said to Rabbi Perida: The Sage Rabbi Ezra, who is of especially fine lineage, a grandson of Rabbi Avtolus, who in turn is a tenth-generation descendant of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who is a tenth-generation descendant of Ezra the Scribe, is standing and waiting at the gate of the house and seeks entry. Rabbi Perida said to the Sages: What is the need for all this detail about Rabbi Ezra’s lineage?
Eventually, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael sent two Torah scholars after him, Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar and the grandson of Zekharya ben Kevutal. When Ḥanina saw them, he asked them: Why did you come? They responded: We came to study Torah. Since he saw his standing enhanced by the Sages of Eretz Yisrael coming to study Torah from him, he proclaimed about them: These people are eminent scholars of our generation, and their fathers served in the Temple. As we learned in tractate Yoma: Zekharya ben Kevutal says: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel on the eve of Yom Kippur.
A disagreement was stated with regard to water heated by fire: Ḥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with such water, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one may wash his hands with it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, about this halakha, and he was one who would eat only in a state of ritual purity and was therefore careful about washing his hands; and he said to me that all the great men of the Galilee would do so, i.e., wash their hands in heated water.
The Gemara answers based on a baraita. Come and hear: Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias were stringent with themselves not to sell at all, even in private. Hunters of animals, fowlers, and fishermen may hunt their quarry discreetly for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko were stringent with themselves not to hunt at all. Groats makers who crack grain into groats called Ḥilka, targis, and tisanei, crack the grain in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The groats makers of Tzippori were stringent with themselves not to crack grain at all. According to Rabbi Yosei, the stringencies involve refraining from work entirely.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When distributing poor man’s tithe, one must give each individual poor person at least an ukla, an eighth of a log, of spices, a liter of vegetables, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, or one citron, as these are worthy amounts for distribution. And Gursak bar Darei said in the name of Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, who said in the name of Rav: And similarly, this is the halakhawith regard to an eiruv. Now, it can be asked: These apples should also be like peaches, as they are similar in size, and it should be enough to use five apples for an eiruv.
The Gemara relates that the amora’im conducted themselves in accordance with their above-stated opinions. At the conclusion of Shabbat, Rav Yehuda would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Adda, the servant, which was far from his house. Rava would recite a blessing over the light of the house of Gurya bar Ḥama, which was adjacent to his house. Abaye would recite a blessing over the light of the house of bar Avuh.
For on one occasion the Sages were reclining in the upper story of the house of Gurya in Jericho. A Divine Voice from Heaven was issued to them, and it said: There is one person among you for whom it is fitting that the Divine Presence should rest upon him as a prophet, but his generation is not fit for it; they do not deserve to have a prophet among them. The Sages present directed their gaze to Hillel the Elder. And when he died, they eulogized him in the following manner: Alas pious one, alas humble one, student of Ezra.
§ Since Shmuel HaKatan and his great piety were mentioned, the Gemara now relates several incidents that shed additional light on his personality. The Sages taught: After the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the Divine Spirit of prophetic revelation departed from the Jewish people. But nevertheless, they were still utilizing a Divine Voice, which they heard as a kind of echo of prophecy. One time, a group of Sages were reclining in the loft of the house of Gurya in Jericho, and a Divine Voice was bestowed upon them from Heaven, saying: There is one here who is fit for the Divine Presence to rest upon him as it rested upon Moses our teacher, but his generation is not deserving of this distinction. The Sages set their eyes upon Hillel the Elder, trusting that he was the one indicated by the Divine Voice. And when he died, the Sages said about him: Alas, the pious man, alas, the humble man, a disciple of Ezra.
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the feast of Abraham, our forefather, was superior to that of King Solomon? But isn’t it written: “And Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and sixty measures of meal; ten fat oxen, and twenty oxen out of the pastures, and a hundred sheep, beside harts, and gazelles, and roebucks, and fatted fowl” (I Kings 5:2–3). And Guryon ben Asteyon says in the name of Rav: These measures of flour mentioned in the verse were used merely for the bakers’ well-worked dough [la’amilan] that was placed in the pot to absorb the steam. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These measures of flour were used for meat pudding, a mixture of wine, flour, and leftover meat, in a pot.
As it is taught in a baraita: If one gave wheat to a prostitute for her payment, i.e., the hire of her services, and she made the wheat into flour; or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil; or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in onebaraita that it is prohibited to bring these products as an offering in the Temple, in accordance with the verse: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot…into the house of the Lord your God for any vow” (Deuteronomy 23:19). And it is taught in onebaraita that these products are permitted, as the physical change renders them into new items. And Rav Yosef says that Guryon of Asporak teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, these two baraitot reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
GEMARA:The Sages taught: If one gave wheat to a prostitute and she made the wheat into flour, or if he gave her olives and she made them into oil, or if he gave her grapes and she made them into wine, it is taught in onebaraita that these products are prohibited to be used as an offering in the Temple, and it is taught in anotherbaraita that they are permitted, as the physical change transforms them into new objects. Rav Yosef said that Guryon of Aspork teaches in a baraita: Beit Shammai prohibit these products and Beit Hillel permit them. If so, the two baraitot cited above reflect a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
It was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation,” that these are the inhabitants of Barbarya and the inhabitants of Martenai, who walk naked in the marketplace, as none is more despised and abominable before the Omnipresent than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These are the Ḥabbarim, a sect of Persian priests. The Gemara relates: When they said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Ḥabbarim have come to Babylonia, he shuddered and fell off his chair, out of concern for the Jews living there. They said to him: There is a way to deal with their persecution, as they accept bribes. Upon hearing that not all was lost, he straightened himself and sat in his place once again.
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.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels.
Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all of the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as it was known that these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver. They did not permit the use of these coins until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar.
The Gemara asks: And is Jerusalem the majority of the world such that that all of the silver and gold of the world should be prohibited due to a concern that it comes from Jerusalem? Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver, until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted, as it is stated: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it.”
Ulla said: Ḥagga does not know what the Sages say, yet he raises an objection? Here we are dealing with a case where the vinegar fell into the cold split beans and one subsequently heated them, in which case it becomes like a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of the mixture and subsequently detracted from it, as vinegar enhances the flavor of cold split beans, and it is consequently forbidden according to Rabbi Meir.
The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Ḥagga teaches a slightly different version of the baraita, that if the digger of the pit died from the impact of the ox, and the ox effectively buried him in the ground at the bottom of the pit, his heirs have to pay damages to the owner of the ox? In this scenario, how could it be possible for the digger to stand trial? The Gemara answers: The halakha in the baraita, that the owner of the ox collects from the heirs of the digger, is dealing with a case where judges sat at the opening of the pit and rendered the digger liable to pay damages before he died.
Rav Naḥman said to Ḥama bar Adda, emissary of the talmudic academies in Zion, who would regularly travel back and forth from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia: When you go up there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path; and go to the Ladder of Tyre, and go to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi, who lives in Tyre, and raise this dilemma before him: What do you say with regard to a chair borne on poles; may one go out in such a chair on a Festival?
The Gemara relates another incident: Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed money to people from Bei Ḥozai. He sent the money in the possession of Ḥama, son of Rabba bar Abbahu, who went and paid the money that Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, owed, and he then said to the people from Bei Ḥozai: Give me back the document that shows that the person who sent me owes you money. They said to him: The money that you paid us was for side debts, i.e., money from a different debt, which was not written in a document. We accepted the money from you as payment of that debt. We will therefore not return the document to you, as he has yet to pay off the debt listed in the document.
Abaye said: Isn’t it Ḥama, son of Rabba bar Avuh, who teaches it? And therefore, even if the halakha with regard to a cornice will be a baraita, it nevertheless poses a difficulty to Rav.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta happened to come to a certain inn, and they brought him oil in a vessel. He rubbed it on his face, and boils developed on his face. He went out to the marketplace, and a certain woman saw him and said: I see here the evil spirit of Ḥamat on your face. She performed an action, i.e., whispered an incantation, for him, and he was healed.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: She said to herself: I will act kindly toward him and thereby bring the king to suspect that we are having an affair; she did so in order that both he and she would be killed. Essentially, Esther was willing to be killed with Haman in order that the decree would be annulled. Rabban Gamliel says: Ahasuerus was a fickle king, and Esther hoped that if he saw Haman on multiple occasions, eventually he would change his opinion of him. Rabban Gamliel said: We still need the words of Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i to understand why Esther invited Haman to her banquet. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i says: She made the king jealous of him and she made the other ministers jealous of him, and in this way she brought about his downfall.
Rabban Gamliel said: In order to understand this verse (Genesis 40:10) we still need the explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, who is an expert in matters of aggada, as he interprets all of the phrases in the verse as referring to one location. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: “Vine”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the Temple, the king and the High Priest. “And as it was budding [poraḥat], its blossoms shot forth”; these are the young priests [pirḥei khehunna]. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.
The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat, which was the ruling in Shmuel’s version of the mishna. The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come to Pumbedita and he did not enter Rav Yehuda’s lecture. Rav Yehuda sent for Adda, his attendant, and said to him: Go drag him to the lecture. He went and dragged him forcibly to the lecture (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Rabba bar bar Ḥana came and found Rav Yehuda teaching that one may not reset a break on Shabbat. He said to him: This is what Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said that Shmuel said: The halakha is that one may reset a break on Shabbat. Rav Yehuda said to him: Ḥana is ours, a Babylonian scholar, and Shmuel is ours, and nevertheless, I did not yet hear this halakha; did I not rightfully drag you to the lecture?
Rav Ḥana said to Rav Sheshet: Go to the end of the verse: “These then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horn against the land of Judah to scatter it.” This indicates that the horns refer to the nations that exiled the Jewish people and that the four craftsmen will hurl those horns aside. Rav Sheshet said to him: Why should I disagree with Rav Ḥana in matters of aggada, where he is more expert than I, and I cannot prevail?
Rabbi Mani said to his teacher: The members of my household, i.e., my wife, are not acceptable to me, as she is not beautiful. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is her name? Rabbi Mana replied: Ḥana. Rabbi Yitzḥak declared: Let Ḥana grow beautiful, and indeed she grew beautiful. After a while, Rabbi Mani said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: She acts haughtily toward me, due to her great beauty. He said to him: If so, let Ḥana return to her homely appearance, and she returned to her homely appearance.
Proof that one is not suspected of both concealing the truth and lying is cited, as in that case of Mari bar Isak, and some say it was Ḥana bar Isak, where someone claiming to be his brother came to him from Bei Ḥoza’a, a district located far from the Jewish population centers in Babylonia. This brother said to him: Apportion me a share in my father’s property. Mari said to him: I do not know you. The brother came before Rav Ḥisda seeking a legal remedy. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Your brother is speaking well and his response is well founded, as it is written: “And Joseph recognized his brothers but they recognized him not” (Genesis 42:8). This teaches that Joseph left the land of Canaan without the trace of a beard and came to meet his brothers with the trace of a beard.
GEMARA:Ran Ḥanan said to Rava: Since the mishna states that Grace After Meals must be recited over the third cup, learn from it that Grace After Meals requires a cup of wine. Rava said to him: This is no proof, for although the Sages instituted the drinking of four cups in the manner of freedom, once the four cups are in place, with each and every one of them we will perform a mitzva, despite the fact that they were not originally instituted for this purpose. After the Sages instituted these four cups, they attached a special mitzva to each one. However, this does not prove that there is an obligation to recite Grace After Meals over a cup of wine during the rest of the year.
It was related that Rabbi Ḥanin was a son-in-law in the house of the Nasi. At first he did not have any children, but he prayed that God have mercy on him, and then had a child. On the same day that a son was born to him, he himself passed away. A certain eulogizer opened his eulogy for him with the following words: Happiness has been turned into sorrow; joy and suffering have become joined together. At the moment of his happiness he sighed his dying breath. At the moment he was graced with a son, his own grace was lost. And they named the child Ḥanan after his father.
If she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Ḥanan and the sons of the High Priests, as we learned in a mishna (104b): With regard to one who went to a country overseas and his wife claims money for sustenance, Ḥanan says: She takes an oath at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract, that her husband did not leave her with any money and that she took from his estate only what she needed for her sustenance. And she does not take an oath at the beginning, when she takes the allowance for her sustenance from his estate.
MISHNA:There were two prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem, Admon and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. Ḥanan states two matters about which the Sages disagreed; Admon states seven. The mishna elaborates: With regard to the case of one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, claiming that her husband left her without funds and she is seeking a ruling that would provide for her from her husband’s property, Ḥanan says:
GEMARA: The mishna states that there were two judges who issued decrees [gezeirot] in Jerusalem. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There were three judges who adjudicated cases of theft [gezeilot] in Jerusalem: Admon ben Gaddai, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. The fact that the baraita mentions three judges is difficult, as the mishna includes only two; and the fact that the judges are described in the mishna as those who issue decrees is also difficult as they are described in the baraita as judges who adjudicate cases of theft.
Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥanan ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi.
§ The Gemara relates another story about a descendant of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. Ḥanan HaNeḥba was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s daughter. When the world was in need of rain, the Sages would send schoolchildren to him, and they would grab him by the hem of his cloak and say to him: Father, Father, give us rain. He said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, act on behalf of these children, who cannot distinguish between their Father in Heaven, Who can provide rain, and the father who cannot provide rain. The Gemara asks: And why was he called Ḥanan HaNeḥba? Because he would hide [maḥbi] himself in the lavatory so that people would not bestow honor upon him.
Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion is thisbaraita? It is the opinion of Ḥanan the Egyptian, as it was taught in a baraita that Ḥanan the Egyptian says: Even if the goat sacrificed to God has already been slaughtered and its blood has been collected in the cup, if the scapegoat dies, he brings another goat as a counterpart and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered. Since in this case the priest need not draw new lots and the second goat is immediately designated to be sent to Azazel, it was necessary to teach that this goat must not be lacking time.
The Gemara presents a challenge with regard to this answer. Say that you heard Ḥanan the Egyptian say that he does not hold that if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the other goat is rejected. Did you also hear him say that he does not require a new lottery for the second goat? Perhaps he meant that one brings two new goats and draws lots, and whichever is designated to be sent to Azazel is the counterpart to the goat that was already slaughtered.
GEMARA: The mishna states that there were two judges who issued decrees [gezeirot] in Jerusalem. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There were three judges who adjudicated cases of theft [gezeilot] in Jerusalem: Admon ben Gaddai, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥanan ben Avishalom. The fact that the baraita mentions three judges is difficult, as the mishna includes only two; and the fact that the judges are described in the mishna as those who issue decrees is also difficult as they are described in the baraita as judges who adjudicate cases of theft.
Later, Ḥanan the tailor happened to meet Rav Huna, and he said to him: From where could poor Rav Yosef have known the answer to this question? Ḥanan continued: There was an incident in which I was involved, as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rabena’a, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana to ask him the same question, and the answer was not available to him either. I then came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya, who said to me: You have fallen into my hand, i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question. This is what Shmuel says: The wife of a Ḥaver is herself considered like a Ḥaver, and you may therefore rely on her statement.
The Gemara relates: Ḥanan the wicked slapped a certain man. He then came before Rav Huna for judgment. Rav Huna said to him: Go give him a half-dinar, which is the fine imposed for such an act. Ḥanan the wicked had a clipped dinar, and wanted to give him a half-dinar from it, but there was no one who wanted to take it from him to give him smaller coins for it. Ḥanan the wicked then gave him another slap, rendering himself liable to pay an additional fine of half a dinar, and gave him the clipped dinar as payment.
The Gemara questions this answer: And did Rav hold that the Sages did not implement the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace in this case? But wasn’t Rav Huna a student of Rav, and yet when a certain thief known as Ḥanan the Wicked stole a cloak and then sold it, and the case came before Rav Huna, he said to that man from whom the cloak was stolen: Go redeem your pledge from the purchaser, i.e., reimburse the purchaser for the garment that he returned to you. Evidently, Rav’s own student held that the Sages did allow a purchaser to claim reimbursement from the owner.
The Gemara answers that Ḥanan the Wicked is different. Since he has no money, there is no way for the purchaser to collect payment from him, and the case is therefore comparable to a case where the thief was not identified, with regard to which case the Sages implemented the provision ensuring the integrity of the marketplace.
This opinion, that seeing an elephant is a good omen, refers to a case where one saw it saddled, while this opinion, that it is a bad omen, refers to a case where the elephant is not saddled. One who sees a man named Huna in a dream, it is a sign that a miracle will be performed for him, because the letter nun in the name Huna represents the word nes, miracle. One who sees a man named Ḥanina, Ḥananya, or Yoḥanan, it is a sign that many miracles will be performed for him, since the letter nun appears twice in those names. One who sees a eulogy in a dream, it is a sign that the heavens had mercy upon him, and spared him from a divine death sentence and there will be no need to eulogize him in reality. The Gemara restricts this statement and says that this only applies if he saw the eulogy written and not yet delivered.
And in order to underscore this, tell our brethren in exile: If they obey the Sages of Eretz Yisrael to excommunicate Ḥanina, fine; and if they do not obey us, it is as if they are seceding from the Jewish people. They should climb a mountain; Aḥiya, one of the leaders of the Babylonian Jewish community, will build an altar, Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, who was a Levite, will play the lute, and all will proclaim heresy and say that they have no portion in the God of Israel.
The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: A person may go outab initio donning phylacteries on Shabbat eve at nightfall. Although one does not don phylacteries on Shabbat and going out donning them involves an element of carrying, there is no concern lest he forget and remove them on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Because Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person is obligated to touch his phylacteries at all times that he is donning them. This is derived from an a fortiori inference [kal vaḥomer] from the frontplate [tzitz] of the High Priest. Just as with regard to the frontplate, which has only one mention of God’s name, the Torah said: “And it should be always upon his forehead” (Exodus 28:38), which means that the High Priest must always be aware that the tzitz is placed on his head and that he should not be distracted from it; phylacteries that have numerous mentions of God’s name, all the more so one should always be aware of them. Therefore, he remembers that the phylacteries are on his head and is not likely to come to carry them on Shabbat. On a related note, the Gemara mentions that it was taught in a baraita that Ḥananya says: A person is required to feel his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall to ascertain whether he forgot an object in his pockets that he might come to carry on Shabbat. And Rav Yosef commented and said: That is a significant halakha for Shabbat, and it is fitting to do so in order to refrain from violating a prohibition.
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya ben Akavya, as it was taught in a baraita that Ḥananya ben Akavya says: If a balcony that contains four cubits by four cubits is suspended above water, one may carve out a hole of four handbreadths by four handbreadths in it and draw water through it. The section of the floor surrounding the hole is considered as though it bent downward and formed a partition ten handbreadths high on all sides. Consequently, no other partition is necessary.
The Gemara poses a question: Is that so? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There are three lectures. In other words, there are three Sages with regard to whom it states that they delivered lectures on the mystical tradition: Rabbi Yehoshua lectured on these matters before Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai; Rabbi Akiva lectured before Rabbi Yehoshua; and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai lectured before Rabbi Akiva. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was not included in the list, despite the testimony that he lectured before Rabban Yoḥanan. The Gemara explains: Those who lectured and were also lectured to were included; but those who lectured and were not lectured to were not included. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai, who was not lectured to, and yet he is included? The Gemara answers: Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai actually lectured before one who lectured in front of his own rabbi, so he was also included in this list.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Abba Ḥalafta, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Matya, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai stood on those same stones that the Jewish people took from the Jordan, and they measured them and found that each and every one weighed about forty se’a. And it is learned as a tradition that a load that one can lift onto his shoulders is one-third of the weight of the load that he can carry when others load it onto him.
The Gemara asks: This is the case if the animal was in its second year, but what is the halakha if it was found when it was in its first year? The Gemara answers: It is taught in a baraita: Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If one found a goat in its first year, it is brought as a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that it is brought as a sin-offering? How can he sacrifice the animal as a sin-offering due to a mere possibility that it had been designated as a sin-offering? One cannot bring a voluntary sin-offering. Rather, Abaye says: He treats it as though it were a sin-offering, i.e., he conveys it into a cell and it dies on its own. Since it might be a lost sin-offering, it must be left to die.
The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Megillat Ta’anit, which is a list of days of redemption that were established as celebrations for generations: Who wrote Megillat Ta’anit? This scroll was written by Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon and his faction, who held dear the memory of the troubles that befell Israel and their salvation from them.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya, as if not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed because its contents, in many details, contradict matters of Torah. The Sages sought to suppress the book and exclude it from the canon. What did he, Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya, do? They brought him three hundred jugs of oil, for light and food, up to his upper story, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed contradictory, and resolved the contradictions.
Rav Yehuda said: Indeed, that man is remembered for good, and Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya was his name, because were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed. Why did they wish to suppress it? Because they found that its words contradicted the words of Torah, as its later chapters contain many halakhot that appear not to accord with those of the Torah. What did he do? They brought up to him three hundred barrels of oil, for light and sustenance, and he sat in an upper chamber and expounded it, to reconcile its teachings with those of the Torah.
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught in another baraita: One may not shake clothing by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp. These two decrees are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the upper story of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Learn from this that both of the decrees are due to the concern lest he adjust the wick. In both decrees, the prohibition of doing so by the light of the lamp, lest he come to adjust the wick, was mentioned. Indeed, learn from this.
MISHNA:And these are among the halakhot that the Sages, who went up to visit him, said in the upper story of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. The precise nature of these halakhot will be explained in the Gemara. These halakhot are considered one unit because they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were there, among them most of the generation’s Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various halakhot of the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing opinions were counted, the students of Beit Shammai outnumbered the students of Beit Hillel, and they issued decrees with regard to eighteen matters on that day in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
GEMARA: With regard to the language that introduces our mishna, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did we learn in our mishna: These are among the halakhot, or did we learn in our mishna: And these are among the halakhot? The difference is significant. Did we learn: And these, and if so, the reference would be to those that we said earlier, i.e., that those halakhot are included in the decrees? Or did we learn: These, and if so the reference would be to those that we seek to mention below? Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught together in a baraita: One may not shake garments to rid them of lice by the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp; and these are among the halakhot that the Sages said in the attic of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Conclude from this that we learned: And these in the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned earlier.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:2): The court may intercalate the years only when located in Judea. And if they intercalated it when located in the Galilee, the year is nevertheless intercalated. Ḥananya of Ono testified: Even if the court already formally intercalated the year when located in the Galilee, it is not intercalated. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says: What is the reasoning of Ḥananya of Ono? The verse states: “But to the place that the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, to His abode shall you seek, and there you shall come” (Deuteronomy 12:5). This is interpreted as: Every pursuit that you shall pursue in the area of halakhamust be only in the abode of the Omnipresent, in close proximity to Jerusalem, i.e., in Judea.
Rav Ashi replied: Yes, the tanna’im do in fact disagree about a boat that is standing. When the mishna says that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva wished to be stringent upon themselves, implying that there is no real dispute, it is referring to a boat that is stationary. And it was taught in a baraita: Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, says: All that day they spent on the boat, they sat and discussed the matter of halakha; and come evening my father’s brother, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua, determined: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a moving boat, i.e., one is permitted to walk about all of it. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to a pen and a stable, i.e., one may only walk four cubits in them, and the same applies to a stationary boat.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These halakhothave something to support them, as it is stated: “Whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it” (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: “I have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.
Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, says that the requirement for the Levites to sing in the Temple is derived from here: “Moses spoke, and God answered him with a voice” (Exodus 19:19).
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha stated? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Ḥananya. The Gemara explains the dispute alluded to here: As it is taught in a baraita: The offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband, whereas the child of a usufruct maidservant belongs to the wife. And Ḥananya, son of Yoshiya’s brother, said: They made the status of the child of a usufruct maidservant like that of the offspring of a usufruct animal, which belongs to the husband. Both opinions in the baraita agree that the offspring of a usufruct animal belongs to the husband. Why, then, must the thief pay the double payment to the woman?
Ḥanin ben Pineḥas says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove a wood chip from between her teeth. The Sage Peleimu says: This is equivalent to the time that she may need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. He adds: Although there is no explicit proof from a verse for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26).
The Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the first baraita. Ḥanin ben Pineḥas says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove a wood chip from between her teeth. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of a case where the wood chip is stuck between her teeth, or is it speaking of a case where it is not stuck? The Gemara states: The question shall stand unresolved.
As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of Ḥanina ben Dosa, my son, and for Ḥanina, my son, a kav of carobs is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve.
And there was another incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, who went to study Torah before Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s son fell ill. He said to him: Ḥanina, my son, pray for mercy on behalf of my son so that he will live. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed his head between his knees in order to meditate and prayed for mercy upon his behalf, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s son lived. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said about himself: Had ben Zakkai stuck his head between his knees throughout the entire day, they would have paid him no attention. His wife said to him: And is Ḥanina greater than you? He replied to her: No, but his prayer is better received than my own because he is like a servant before the King, and as such he is able to enter before the King and make various requests at all times. I, on the other hand, am like a minister before the King, and I can enter only when invited and can make requests only with regard to especially significant matters.
This opinion, that seeing an elephant is a good omen, refers to a case where one saw it saddled, while this opinion, that it is a bad omen, refers to a case where the elephant is not saddled. One who sees a man named Huna in a dream, it is a sign that a miracle will be performed for him, because the letter nun in the name Huna represents the word nes, miracle. One who sees a man named Ḥanina, Ḥananya, or Yoḥanan, it is a sign that many miracles will be performed for him, since the letter nun appears twice in those names. One who sees a eulogy in a dream, it is a sign that the heavens had mercy upon him, and spared him from a divine death sentence and there will be no need to eulogize him in reality. The Gemara restricts this statement and says that this only applies if he saw the eulogy written and not yet delivered.
and reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. My son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamliel should be the Nasi. Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva.
§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instructed: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina did not accept this appointment, because Rabbi Afes was older than him by two and a half years and he did not want to precede him in accepting this position. Consequently, Rabbi Afes sat at the head of the yeshiva, and Rabbi Ḥanina sat outside, as it was unbefitting for him to sit as a student before Rabbi Afes. And Levi came and sat and studied with him outside.
And if you wish, say instead that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had said: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva, it is not possible that he will not one day rule the yeshiva. Therefore, it must have been Rabbi Afes who died and Rabbi Ḥanina who took his place, as it is written about the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you” (Job 22:28).
Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai says there is a different answer: The priest places the two loaves between the thighs of the two lambs and waves them. And in this manner it is found that he realizes the meaning of both of these two verses, as the bread is on top of the lambs and the lambs are also on top of the bread. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, in objection to this opinion: One would not do so, i.e., place bread that had been placed between the thighs of lambs, before a flesh and blood king; should one do so before the King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He? Rather, he places the two loaves and the two lambs alongside each other, and waves them together, and thereby fulfills the requirements of the verses in a respectful manner.
And Rabbi Shimon said: Ḥanina ben Ḥakhinai found me in the city of Tzaidan and said to me: When you reach Rabbi Akiva, say to him: Until when can a young girl perform refusal? If he says to you that she may perform refusal until she grows two pubic hairs, say to him: But didn’t ben Shelakot testify in the presence of all of you in Yavne that she may perform refusal until the pubic area is filled with hair [shetekhalkel], and you did not say anything to him, thereby indicating that you conceded to him?
The Gemara concludes the discussion of specific difficult verses in Ezekiel with the following general statement: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: That man is remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name. As were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed and not included in the biblical canon, because various details of its contents appear to contradict statements of the Torah. What did Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya do? He brought up to his upper story three hundred jugs [garbei] of oil for light so that he could study even at night, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed to contradict verses in the Torah.
The Gemara asks: How did Rav arrive at that particular conclusion? And perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina died and Rabbi Afes remained standing in his position at the head of the yeshiva as he stood previously; and Levi had no one with whom to sit outside the study hall, and that is why he came here? The Gemara answers that that could not be the case for two reasons. First, if it were so, that Rabbi Ḥanina died, Levi would have been subject to the authority of Rabbi Afes. It was only in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina that Levi did not enter the study hall. And furthermore, it could not be that Rabbi Ḥanina died and did not reign as head of the yeshiva, as when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, he said in his dying testament: Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Ḥama, shall sit at the head of the yeshiva. And of the righteous it is written: “You will decree a saying and it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways” (Job 22:28). Since the statement that Rabbi Ḥanina will serve at the head of the yeshiva crossed the lips of a righteous person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is inconceivable that it would not have been realized.
Rav Safra said: Rabbi Abbahu would relate: When Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, went to the Diaspora, Babylonia, he would intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz Yisrael. Because Judaism in Eretz Yisrael had declined in the wake of the bar Kokheva rebellion, he considered it necessary to cultivate the Jewish community in Babylonia as the center of the Jewish people. Among other things, he intercalated the years and established the months even though the halakha restricts those activities to Eretz Yisrael.
While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, Ḥanina’s daughter-in-law went out to greet Rabbi Yehoshua, and said to him: My teacher, what is the halakha with regard to a woman who discharges an item that looks like a snake? Rabbi Yehoshua said to her: Its mother is pure. She said to him: But my mother-in-law said to me in your name that its mother is impure in such a case, and that you said to her: For what reason is she impure? It is because the pupil of a snake is round like that of a human. Due to her statement, Rabbi Yehoshua remembered that he had issued such a ruling. He subsequently sent a message to Rabban Gamliel: Ḥanina issued the ruling based on my own statement.
The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch [Ḥaruta]; Rav Ḥisda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail [makota]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.
One day, while he was studying in his garden, she adorned herself and repeatedly walked past him. He said: Who are you? She said: I am Ḥaruta, a well-known prostitute, returning from my day at work. He propositioned her. She said to him: Give me that pomegranate from the top of the tree as payment. He leapt up, went, and brought it to her, and they engaged in intercourse.
§ The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [Ḥaruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a Ḥaruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion’s roar.
§ There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥasa? Ḥasa has drowned. Rav Naḥman said: By God! The fish have eaten Ḥasa. The Gemara relates: Due to Rav Naḥman’s statement, although he did not issue a court ruling permitting it, Ḥasa’s wife went and married, and no one said anything to her to protest this action. Rav Ashi said: Learn the following from this incident: That which the Sages said, that if a man fell into an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying, this applies only ab initio, but if someone married her, we do not take her away from him.
the southeast chamber in the Hall of the Hearth was the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared. The northeast chamber was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that were desecrated by the gentile kings when they sacrificed idolatrous offerings. The northwest chamber was the chamber in which the priests descended through tunnels to the Hall of Immersion. There is a contradiction between the sources with regard to the location of the Chamber of the Lambs. Rav Huna said: Who is the tanna who taught the mishnayot in tractate Middot? It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who has a different opinion with regard to this matter.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion (Middot 1:6): The northeast chamber of the Chamber of the Hearth was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that the people of Greece desecrated. And Rav Sheshet says: This means that they desecrated the stones by using them for idol worship. This indicates that Temple vessels that were used in idolatrous worship can no longer be used and must be sequestered.
Rava said: From where do I say my reasoning that we are not concerned about two people with identical names? As there were two promissory notes produced in Meḥoza, and these names of the creditors were written on them: Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai, and Rava bar Avuh collected dinars for them with these promissory notes, without concerning himself with the possibility that they might be referring to other people. And the names Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai are very common in Meḥoza, i.e., there are certainly other people with these names, and yet he was not worried about this matter. The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he answer this proof?
King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur vessels of gold. Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier above the entrance of the Sanctuary. She also fashioned a golden tablet [tavla] on which the Torah portion relating to sota was written. The tablet could be utilized to copy this Torah portion, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. With regard to Nicanor, miracles were performed to his doors, the doors in the gate of the Temple named for him, the Gate of Nicanor. And the people would mention all of those whose contributions were listed favorably.
§ The mishna continues: Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier above the entrance of the Sanctuary. It was taught in a mishna: When the sun rose, sparks of light would emanate from the chandelier, which was polished, and everyone knew that the time to recite Shema had arrived. The ideal time to recite Shema is at the moment of sunrise.
GEMARA:The Sages taught: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, never saw celebration in his life. One who did not see Jerusalem in its glory, never saw a beautiful city. One who did not see the Temple in its constructed state, never saw a magnificent structure. The Gemara asks: What is the Temple building to which the Sages refer? Abaye said, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who said: This is referring to the magnificent building of Herod, who renovated the Second Temple.
And we likewise found that in the days of Herod that they were occupied in the building of the Temple, and rain would fall at night. And the next day the wind would blow, the clouds would disperse, the sun would shine, and the people would go out to their work. And as rain would fall only at a time when it would not interfere with their labor, the nation knew that the work of Heaven was being performed by their hands.
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.
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 asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? “There shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god” (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person’s body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.
§ Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The Jewish people are destined to eat from the bounty of, i.e., enjoy, the years of the Messiah. Rav Yosef says: Isn’t this obvious? And rather, who else will eat from them? Will Ḥillak and Billak, two shiftless characters, eat from them? The Gemara explains that Rav Giddel’s statement serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Hillel, who says: There is no Messiah coming for the Jewish people, as they already ate from him, as all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were already fulfilled during the days of Hezekiah.
Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata? instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.
And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burnteruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.
As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places. The Gemara cites the disputes. One, Shammai says: From a kav of dough, one is required to separate Ḥalla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate Ḥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating Ḥalla. And Hillel says: One must separate Ḥalla only from two kav. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the statement of that one, who is lenient. Rather, one and a half kav is the measure from which one is obligated to separate Ḥalla. Once the measures increased and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the measure from which one is obligated to separate Ḥalla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate Ḥalla.
GEMARA:The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?
The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi Ḥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name. And so said Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons: Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis did not disagree concerning the soft mats of Usha,
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was coming on the road when he heard a scream in the city. He said: I am certain that the scream is not coming from my house. And of him, the verse says: “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” (Psalms 112:7). Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, its meaning is clear. It can be interpreted from beginning to end or it can be interpreted from end to beginning. The Gemara explains: It can be interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? Because his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. The Gemara continues: And it can be interpreted from end to beginning: One whose heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord is a person who shall not be afraid of evil tidings.
With regard to this verse, it was taught in a baraita that Hillel the Elder says: At the time of gathering, if the Sages of the generation see to it that the Torah remains the purview of the few, disseminate it to the public at large. At the time of dissemination, gather, and leave it to others to disseminate the Torah. And if you see a generation for whom Torah is beloved, disseminate, as it is stated: “There is who scatters, and yet increases” (Proverbs 11:24). However, if you see a generation for whom Torah is not beloved, gather; do not cause the Torah to be disgraced, as it is stated: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah.” Preventing Torah study in that situation is a manifestation of work for the Lord.
They said about Hillel the Elder that each and every day he would work and earn a half-dinar, half of which he would give to the guard of the study hall and half of which he spent for his sustenance and the sustenance of the members of his family. One time he did not find employment to earn a wage, and the guard of the study hall did not allow him to enter. He ascended to the roof, suspended himself, and sat at the edge of the skylight in order to hear the words of the Torah of the living God from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, the spiritual leaders of that generation.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out blue eye shadow is equivalent to that which is used to paint one eye blue. The Gemara asks: How could the mishna say one eye? Women do not paint only one eye blue. Rav Huna said: Because modest women, who cover their faces with a veil, paint only the one eye that shows blue. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: For carrying out blue eye shadow, if it is used for healing, the measure for liability is equivalent to that which is used to paint one eye blue; if it is used to adorn the eye, the measure that determines liability for carrying out is equivalent to that which is used for two eyes. Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, explained it: When thisbaraitawas taught it was in reference to village women. Because immodest behavior is less common there, women do not customarily cover their faces.
The Gemara asks: But, if that is so, what about that which is taught in the mishna: With regard to a gentile, if he intended to testify, his testimony is not considered valid testimony, which implies that if the gentile does not intend to testify, his statement may be relied upon? How can you find a case where one would rely on his statement? The Gemara answers: One may rely on a gentile’s statement when he speaks offhandedly, without any intention to testify. Like that gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥivvai; who is from the house of Ḥivvai? Ḥivvai has died. And based upon this report, Rav Yosef allowed Ḥivvai’s wife to marry. There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Alas for the brave horseman who was in Pumbedita, for he is dead. And Rav Yosef, and some say Rava, allowed his wife to marry.
Rav Ḥisda said: Melon juice, which is beneficial for the intestines, may be strained and drunk on Shabbat (ge’onim). The juice of pipuim, which are a type of vegetable (Rashba), may not be drunk on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Ze’iri’s wife made melon juice for Ḥiyya bar Ashi and he did not consume it. She said to him: I made it for your Rabbi, Ze’iri, and he ate it, and you do not eat it? The Gemara explains: Ze’iri followed his own reasoning in permitting this drink, as Ze’iri said: One may place clear wine and clear water into a strainer used to strain dregs from wine on Shabbat without concern. Apparently, since the wine and water are drunk even with what little dregs may remain, one is doing nothing to improve them. Here, too, since melon juice is consumed this way, without being strained and for non-medical purposes, one is doing nothing and it is permitted.
It was related that Rav permitted Ḥiyya bar Ashi to weave simple traps [oharei] on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is because it is the work of a layman. However, complex nets [izlei] are prohibited. What is the reason? It is the work of a craftsman, which is prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival.
Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of Torah, come and I will tell you a great saying that your father said. Your father said the following: When one bows, he bows when he says: Blessed, and when he stands upright, he stands upright when he says God’s name.
Ḥiyya bar Rav said: If in the evening one recited the portion of ritual fringes concluding with: I am the Lord, your God, he must recite: True and Faithful [emetve’emuna], and the entire blessing of redemption. However, if he did not recite: I am the Lord, your God, he need not recite emetve’emuna.
Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said that Ḥiyya bar Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said it in the name of his mentor, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: You have spoken well, as proven by what Shmuel said: In all my days I have never prayed the additional prayer as an individual
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita:They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.
Rav Beivai bar Abaye thought to finish all the Torah portions of the entire year, which he had been unable to complete at their appointed time, on the eve of Yom Kippur when he would have time to do so. But Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught him: It is written with regard to Yom Kippur: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32).
The Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, would spend the entire year fasting during the day and eating only sparsely at night, except for Shavuot, Purim, and the eve of Yom Kippur. He made these exceptions for the following reasons: Shavuot because it is the day on which the Torah was given and there is a mitzva to demonstrate one’s joy on that day; Purim because “days of feasting and gladness” is written about it; the eve of Yom Kippur, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:32). But does one fast on the ninth of Tishrei? Doesn’t one fast on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this comes to tell you: One who eats and drinks on the ninth, the verse ascribes him credit as if he fasted on both the ninth and the tenth of Tishrei.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, who learns that one adds from the profane to the sacred from the verse dealing with the Sabbatical Year, what does he do with this verse: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month in the evening”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which was taught by Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti, as Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught the following baraita: The verse states: “And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth of the month.” Is the fasting on the ninth? But isn’t the fasting on Yom Kippur on the tenth of Tishrei? Rather, this verse comes to teach you: Whoever eats and drinks on the ninth, thereby preparing himself for the fast on the next day, the verse ascribes him credit
Ḥiyya bar Rava says: There are eight tereifot in the category of a perforated organ: A perforated gullet, brain membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, intestine, inner rumen, and reticulum or omasum that was perforated to the outside. If you say that there are nine, because a perforated gallbladder is also mentioned in the mishna, one can say that with regard to the gallbladder, only Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it, and it is the opinion of an individual. As it is taught in a baraita: If the abomasum was perforated, or the intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated it is a tereifa.
Rav Huna raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi, and some say that it was Ḥiyya, son of Rav, who raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi: The mishna states that she is always under her father’s authority until she enters the wedding canopy. According to Rav Asi, however, as soon as her father delivers her to the husband’s messengers she is no longer under her father’s authority. Rav said to them: Didn’t I tell you not to follow, i.e., attempt to refute rulings, on the basis of sources that can be explained in opposing manners? Rav Asi can answer you that the mishna means that her delivery to the husband’s messengers is equivalent to her entrance to the wedding canopy, and the same halakhot apply in both cases.
The Gemara asks: And how adjacent must one be in order to be considered to have derived benefit from the flame? Ulla said: So that he can distinguish between an issar and a pundeyon, two coins of the period. Ḥizkiya said: So that he can distinguish between a weight used in Tiberias and a weight used in Tzippori, which were slightly different.
GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: Because, in general, one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival. With regard to the fundamental principle that one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Ḥizkiya said, and one of the Sages from the school of Ḥizkiya taught the same, that which the verse said: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10), requires explanation. As the Torah did not need to state until morning the second time. It would have been sufficient to state: But that which remains of it you shall burn with fire. Rather, why does the Torah state until morning? The verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning. Leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following day, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival. From there it is derived that burning consecrated items on a Festival is prohibited.
The Gemara remarks that Rav Dimi and Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda disagreed about this matter, and both stated their opinion in the name of Rabbi Elazar. One said that when they are still in his hand, it is permitted to return them to the stove; when they were already placed on the ground, it is prohibited to do so. And one said that even if one placed them on the ground, it is also permitted to return it to the stove. Ḥizkiya said in the name of Abaye: That which you said, that when it is still in his hand, it is permitted to return it to the stove; we only said that halakhawhen his original intention was to return it to the stove. However, when it was not his original intention to return it, and he reconsidered and decided to return it, it is prohibited to return it. This proves by inference that if one placed it on the ground, even if his intention was to return it, it is prohibited.
Ḥizkiya, son of Rabbi Parnakh, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why is the portion of sota juxtaposed with the portion of terumot and tithes (Numbers ch. 5)? They are juxtaposed to tell you: Anyone who has terumot and tithes and does not give them to a priest, will ultimately require the services of a priest by means of his wife, as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). This refers to one who keeps those hallowed items for himself. To this the Torah juxtaposed: “If any man’s wife go aside and act unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12). And it is written: “Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest” (Numbers 5:15). Moreover, ultimately that man will require assistance from the tithe given to the poor, as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). He will himself need those very hallowed items that he was unwilling to give to others.
§ It was also taught in the mishna: One may interweave the cords attached to the frame of a bed. Rabbi Yosei says: One may only tighten the cords. The Gemara asks: What is meant by interweaving, and what is meant by tightening? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree about the matter, and both of them reported their opinions in the name of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan. One Sage said: Interweaving involves placing and tying the cords of the bed both lengthwise and widthwise, whereas tightening means arranging the cords only lengthwise and not widthwise. And one Sage said: Interweaving involves arranging the cords only lengthwise and not widthwise, while tightening means that if a cord became loose, he may tighten it but he may not tie any new cords.
GEMARA:Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi disagree about the following issue, and both of them assert their opinions in the name of Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan. One said: Cover the figs means to lightly cover them with straw, and condense means to spread straw over them densely. And the other one said: Cover means to spread straw over them whether lightly or densely, and condense means to amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is also taught in a baraita: One may condense, i.e., amass the figs into a pile, making it as if it were a pile of grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rav Ḥagga took him in. The body of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s son Yehuda lay buried to the right of his father, and the body of his other son Ḥizkiyya lay to his left. The spirit of Yehuda said to the spirit of Ḥizkiyya: Rise from your place, as it is not proper conduct to remain lying when the body of Rav Huna is standing here. When Ḥizkiyya’s corpse stood up, a pillar of fire rose with him. When Rabbi Ḥagga saw this, he was frightened by what he saw, and so he stood up Rav Huna’s coffin and went away. The Gemara comments: And he was not punished or harmed by this pillar of fire because he set up Rav Huna’s coffin as protection for himself.
The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin that one who dedicates his movable property may give it to a priest of his choosing, whereas one who dedicates his land gives it to members of the current priestly watch. The Gemara relates that Ḥizkiyya bar Biluto heard this statement and went and said the following difficulty before Rabbi Abbahu: But let one juxtapose movable property to land, as the verse states: “That a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.
And Rav Taḥlifa said to him: Do not say: Perhaps. Rather, say: Beit Shammai definitely was referring to the size of a drilled hole and its obstruction, and you can rely on this explanation since it is certainly correct, as certain as the testimony of Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, which is uncontested. It can be derived from here that just as the phrase: Size of a drilled hole, is referring to the size of a hole into which the drill can be inserted and removed, so too, the size of a bitter vetch mentioned in the mishna is referring to a hole into which the bitter vetch can be inserted and removed.
§ The Gemara explains the reference to the testimony of Ḥizkiyya the father of Ikkesh. As we learned in a baraita that Ḥizkiyya, the father of Ikkesh, testified this testimony before Rabban Gamliel in Yavne, which he said in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder: With regard to earthenware vessels, any vessel that does not have a receptacle has no distinction with regard to the halakhic status of its sides. This is in contrast to the earthenware vessels mentioned in the Torah, where only the inside, and not the outside, is susceptible to ritual impurity. Rather, if its inside, i.e., the sides that are used, became impure, its outside also becomes impure. Likewise, if its outside became impure, its inside also becomes impure.
When the tanna taught this baraitabefore Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.
Rava arose, went home, and requested intercourse from his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda. The daughter of Rav Ḥisda said to him: Who was just now in the courtroom? Noticing his unusual behavior, she suspected that there must have been a woman in the court. He said to her: Ḥoma, Abaye’s wife, was there. Upon hearing this, Rava’s wife went after Ḥoma and struck her with the lock of a chest [kulpei deshida] until she drove her out of the entire city of Meḥoza, saying to her: You have already killed three men, as Abaye was your third husband, and now you come to kill another one, my husband Rava? Since you showed him your beauty, he will want to marry you.
The Sages taught: The verse states: “And the woman, with whom a man shall lie giving seed, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:18). The extra term “with whom” comes to exclude a bride who does not become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: It excludes the case of sexual intercourse performed in an atypical manner. Hon, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Naḥman: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda holds: The Torah spared a bride’s adornments, including her make-up, and therefore exempted her from submersion in water, as that might cause them ruin? Rav Naḥman said to him: That is not the reason. Rather, it is because a woman does not become pregnant from the first act of intercourse. Therefore, that act of intercourse would not cause ritual impurity, as it is not considered intercourse that can result in the implanting of seed.
Hon, son of Rav Naḥman, asked Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha with regard to her rival wife? If the yavam consummated the levirate marriage with his brother’s wife, the rival wife is exempted. In the event that the yevama who entered levirate marriage says that her yavam did not consummate the levirate marriage, is there a need for a procedure to exempt the rival wife from the levirate bond?
What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shata?, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.
Shimon ben Sheta?, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Were you not Ḥoni, I would have decreed that you be ostracized, but what can I do to you? You nag [mitḥatei] God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her who bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).
Shimon ben Sheta? relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: If you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you. For were these years like the years of Elijah, when the keys of rain were entrusted in Elijah’s hands, and he swore it would not rain, wouldn’t the name of Heaven have been desecrated by your oath not to leave the circle until it rained? Once you have pronounced this oath, either yours or Elijah’s must be falsified.
What is the source for the third case, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven? The mishna relates that Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, Shimon ben Shata?, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Actually, you should be ostracized for what you said, and if you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.
§ The mishna adds: In general, they cry out on account of any trouble that should not befall the community, a euphemism for trouble that may befall the community, except for an overabundance of rain. Although too much rain may be disastrous, one does not cry out over it, because rain is a sign of a blessing. The mishna relates: An incident occurred in which the people said to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray that rain should fall. He said to them: Go out and bring in the clay ovens used to roast the Paschal lambs, so that they will not dissolve in the water, as torrential rains are certain to fall. He prayed, and no rain fell at all.
§ The mishna taught: An incident occurred in which the people sent a message to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. This event is related in greater detail in the following baraita. The Sages taught: Once, most of the month of Adar had passed but rain had still not fallen. They sent this message to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray, and rain will fall. He prayed, but no rain fell. He drew a circle in the dust and stood inside it, in the manner that the prophet Habakkuk did, as it is stated: “And I will stand upon my watch and set myself upon the tower, and I will look out to see what He will say to me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved” (Habakkuk 2:1). This verse is taken to mean that Habakkuk fashioned a kind of prison for himself where he sat.
§ The Gemara relates another story about a descendant of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. Ḥanan HaNeḥba was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s daughter. When the world was in need of rain, the Sages would send schoolchildren to him, and they would grab him by the hem of his cloak and say to him: Father, Father, give us rain. He said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, act on behalf of these children, who cannot distinguish between their Father in Heaven, Who can provide rain, and the father who cannot provide rain. The Gemara asks: And why was he called Ḥanan HaNeḥba? Because he would hide [maḥbi] himself in the lavatory so that people would not bestow honor upon him.
§ The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ushpizikhnei] of Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him: Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership, they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free of charge.
§ The Gemara relates: The host of Rava, son of Rav Ḥanan, had bundles of unprocessed mustard, whose seeds remained in their stems. He said to his guest, the Sage: What is the halakha with regard to crushing these mustard stalks and eating from them on a Festival? Rava, son of Rav Ḥanan, did not have an answer readily available, so he came before Rava to ask his opinion. Rava said to him that it was taught: One may husk kernels by rubbing them between one’s fingers, and one may likewise crush legumes on a Festival. This statement indicates that it is permitted to crush mustard stalks.
MISHNA:The Elders of the court who read the order of the service of the day before the High Priest passed him to the Elders of the priesthood, and they took him up to the House of Avtinas. And they administered him an oath and took leave of him and went on their way. When they administered this oath they said to him: My Master, High Priest. We are agents of the court, and you are our agent and the agent of the court. We administer an oath to you in the name of Him who housed His name in this House, that you will not change even one matter from all that we have said to you with regard to the burning of the incense or any other service that you will perform when alone. After this oath, he would leave them and cry, and they would leave him and cry in sorrow that the oath was necessary.
GEMARA: A tannataught: The Sages took the High Priest to the House of Avtinas, where the incense was prepared, to teach him the method of taking handfuls of incense, which is a difficult and complex skill. Rav Pappa said: The High Priest had two chambers. One was the Parhedrin chamber and one was the Chamber of the House of Avtinas. One of them was in the north of the courtyard, and one was in the south. The Gemara explains: One was in the north, as we learned in the mishna: There were six chambers in the Israelite courtyard, three in the north and three in the south.
The High Priest had use of two chambers, but we do not know whether the Parhedrin chamber was in the north and the Chamber of the House of Avtinas was in the south, or the Chamber of the House of Avtinas was in the north and the Parhedrin chamber was in the south. And, however, it is reasonable to say that the Parhedrin chamber was in the south and the High Priest slept there.
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But Rava would borrow items from the house of bar Maryon even though they would not borrow from him. The Gemara answers: There, he wanted to cause them to be considered more important in the community. Rava was very wealthy and did not need to borrow for his own benefit. On the contrary, by borrowing from the house of bar Maryon he raised their standing in the community.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain kite that took meat in the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon. The one who found the meat came before Abaye to ask how to proceed. Abaye said to him: Go take it for yourself. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the marketplace of kosher meat a place where there is a majority of Jews? Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. The Gemara answers: A kite is different, as an item taken by a kite is similar to a lost item swept away in the tide of the sea. The Gemara raises another issue: But doesn’t Rav say: Meat that was obscured from sight and unsupervised for a period of time is forbidden, as its source is unknown? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the finder stands and sees the meat from the moment that it was taken by the kite until it was cast among the trees.
It is reported that Rabba imposed a contribution to a certain charity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba said to him: I did this to elevate them in standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit.
It was further related that Abaye permitted the scribes of the house of ben Ḥavu to write phylacteries and mezuzot when they were not copying from a pre-existing text. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he issue this allowance? The Gemara explains: In accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of our master, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written when they are not copied from a written text, and they do not require scoring, i.e., the parchment is not required to have lines etched in it.
Rather, the epikoros mentioned in the mishna is referring to one who conducts himself like one who sits before his teacher and a halakha that he learned from another place happens to fall into his consciousness and the student says: This is what we say there, and he does not say deferentially: This is what the Master said, even if he did not learn that matter from his teacher. Rava said: The term epikoros is referring to one who conducts himself like those from the house of Binyamin the doctor, who say: In what manner have the Sages benefited us with all their Torah study? Never
The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One only recites: Who creates fragrant trees, over the balsam from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and over balsam from the house of Caesar and over myrtle everywhere. According to the previous statement, one recites that blessing over all types of incense.
The Gemara notes that this dispute is like a dispute between tanna’im cited in a baraita: The koy is the wild ram, and there are those who say: It is that which results from the mating of a goat with a doe. Rabbi Yosei says: A koy is a distinct entity, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a species of undomesticated animal or a species of domesticated animal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is a species of domesticated animal, and the members of the house of Dushai would raise flocks and flocks of them, as with other domesticated animals.
MISHNA: Apropos the mention in the mishna of people who took action in the Temple and were mentioned favorably, the mishna lists those who took action in the Temple and were mentioned unfavorably. The craftsmen of the House of Garmu did not want to teach the secret of the preparation of the shewbread and sought to keep the secret within their family. The craftsmen of the House of Avtinas did not want to teach the secret of the preparation of the incense.
GEMARA:The Sages taught in a baraita: The craftsmen of the House of Garmu were expert in the preparation of the shewbread, and they did not want to teach others the secret of its production. The Sages dismissed them and sent for and brought craftsmen from Alexandria in Egypt, a large city with many experts. And those craftsmen knew how to bake like the members of the House of Garmu did, but they did not know how to remove the bread from the oven like they did. The shewbread was baked in a complex shape, and it was difficult to place it in the oven and remove it without breaking it. The difference was that these Alexandrians light the fire outside the oven and bake it outside the oven; and these members of the House of Garmu light the fire inside the oven and bake it inside. In the case of these Alexandrians, their bread becomes moldy over the course of the week, and in the case of these members of the House of Garmu, their bread does not become moldy.
When the Sages heard of the matter that the bread of the imported craftsmen was of lower quality than before, they said: Whatever the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, He created in His honor, as it is stated: “Everyone who is called by My name, I have created for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7). In deference to God, the Sages should diminish their honor for the greater glory of God and let the House of Garmu return to their original station. The Sages sent for them to reassume their previous position, and they did not come. They doubled their wages and they came. Each day until then they would take wages of twelve maneh, and today they take wages of twenty-four maneh. Rabbi Yehuda says: Each day they took twenty-fourmaneh, and today they take forty-eight.
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
§ There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥasa? Ḥasa has drowned. Rav Naḥman said: By God! The fish have eaten Ḥasa. The Gemara relates: Due to Rav Naḥman’s statement, although he did not issue a court ruling permitting it, Ḥasa’s wife went and married, and no one said anything to her to protest this action. Rav Ashi said: Learn the following from this incident: That which the Sages said, that if a man fell into an endless body of water, his wife is prohibited from remarrying, this applies only ab initio, but if someone married her, we do not take her away from him.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita the background for this halakha: When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem, while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside. And every day the people inside would lower down money in a box from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings.
The Gemara asks: But, if that is so, what about that which is taught in the mishna: With regard to a gentile, if he intended to testify, his testimony is not considered valid testimony, which implies that if the gentile does not intend to testify, his statement may be relied upon? How can you find a case where one would rely on his statement? The Gemara answers: One may rely on a gentile’s statement when he speaks offhandedly, without any intention to testify. Like that gentile who was going around saying: Who is from the house of Ḥivvai; who is from the house of Ḥivvai? Ḥivvai has died. And based upon this report, Rav Yosef allowed Ḥivvai’s wife to marry. There was also a certain gentile who was going around saying: Alas for the brave horseman who was in Pumbedita, for he is dead. And Rav Yosef, and some say Rava, allowed his wife to marry.
Rather, say that he recited the following: If the upcoming year is hot, may it also be rainy and moist with dew, lest the heat harm the crops. The High Priest would also pray: And let not the prayer of travelers enter Your presence. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, in the name of Rav Yehuda, concluded the wording of this prayer: May the rule of power not depart from the house of Judea. And may Your nation Israel not depend upon each other for sustenance, nor upon another nation. Instead, they should be sustained from the produce of their own land. Evidently, the High Priest’s prayer that God should not listen to the prayer of individual travelers was disregarded in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
is not from among them. The Sages said to Rava: Master, you are not subject to His hiding of the face, as your prayers are heard, and you are not subject to: “And they shall be devoured,” as the authorities take nothing from you. He said to them: Do you know how many gifts I send in private to the house of King Shapur? Although it might seem that the monarchy does not take anything from me, in actuality I am forced to give many bribes. Even so, the Sages looked upon Rava with suspicion. In the meantime, messengers from the house of King Shapur sent for him and imprisoned him to extort more money from him. Rava said: This is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Wherever the Sages looked upon someone, it resulted in either death or poverty.
plums and quinces and crab apples. However, one may not squeeze pomegranates, because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.
It was taught in the baraita cited above that people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates on weekdays. This indicates that it is typical for people to squeeze pomegranates, and therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem. In other words, squeezing pomegranates is considered typical, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbat.
Rav Pappa said to Rava: Has the Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give money to the tax-collectors on behalf of poor people to pay for their poll tax [karga], and as a result they would enslave them. Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: When those slaves go free, do they require a bill of emancipation, because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, or not, as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money in exchange for wine. Ultimately he heard that men from the house of Parzak the vizier [rufila] sought to appropriate the wine. The buyer said to the seller: Give me my money, as I do not want the wine. The case came before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Just as the Sages instituted pulling with regard to sellers, so did they institute pulling with regard to buyers. Since the buyer had yet to pull the wine into his possession, he can renege on the transaction.
The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier’s sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.
The Gemara responds: There it was the forest of the house of Parzak, the general, and it was obvious that they would pay no attention to a Jewish scholar. Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore said: If the workers of the Persian officer cut down, I will cut down as well, and if they do not cut down, why should I cut down for no purpose? Since if the pullers can stretch their ropes they can go along this side of the river,
The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves, but Israelites from the family of the house of Pegarim and the family of the house of Tzippara from the city of Emaum, and their lineage was sufficiently pure that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites.
And nevertheless, their lives were very different. Rav Ḥisda lived for ninety-two years, whereas Rabba lived for only forty years. The house of Rav Ḥisda celebrated sixty wedding feasts, whereas the house of Rabba experienced sixty calamities. In other words, many fortuitous events took place in the house of Rav Ḥisda and the opposite occurred in the house of Rabba.
In the house of Rav Ḥisda there was bread from the finest flour [semida] even for the dogs, and it was not asked after, as there was so much food. In the house of Rabba, on the other hand, there was coarse barley bread even for people, and it was not found in sufficient quantities. This shows that the length of life, children, and sustenance all depend not upon one’s merit, but upon fate.
This concern for disrupting Torah study was also taught in a baraita: The members of the house of Rabban Gamliel would not say good health when someone sneezed in the study hall, due to the fact that it would lead to suspension of study in the study hall.
We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: The ancestral house of my father, the dynasty of Nesi’im from the house of Hillel, was accustomed to give its white clothes to a gentile launderer no fewer than three days before Shabbat. It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Tzadok said: This was the custom of the house of Rabban Gamliel: They would give white clothes to the gentile launderer three days before Shabbat, and they would give him colored clothes even on Shabbat eve. The Gemara comments: And from their statement we learned that white garments are more difficult to launder than colored ones, as in white garments every stain is more conspicuous.
The mishna taught that Rabban Gamliel says: One may even wash the legumes in water and skim off the refuse floating on top. It is taught (Tosefta, Beitza 1): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: This was the custom of the house of Rabban Gamliel, that they would bring a bucket full with lentils and pour water in it, and then the food would sink down and the refuse would float up, which spared them from having to separate the lentils from the refuse manually.
The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One only recites: Who creates fragrant trees, over the balsam from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and over balsam from the house of Caesar and over myrtle everywhere. According to the previous statement, one recites that blessing over all types of incense.
The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accordance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly summarized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you yourself did not hold that Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even before Rav Yitzḥak came and cited this statement in his name? Didn’t Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happen to come to the house of Rabbi Abba who was from the city Haifa, and a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi’s cloak and he did not move it? What is the reason that he did not lift it? Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
The Gemara records a related incident. Members of the house of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama would, with his approval, seize the slaves of people who owed him money, and they would work them against the will of the owners. Rabba, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, said to him: What is the reason that the Master does this, i.e., seizes and uses these slaves? Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said to him: As Rav Naḥman says: A slave is not worth even the bread in his stomach. When the slaves work for me and eat in my home, I am not causing the owners any monetary loss. Rav Yosef bar Ḥama’s son said to him: I will say that Rav Naḥman said this with regard to specific slaves, such as his slave Daru, who only dances among the wine barrels [kuvei] and does not perform any labor. All other slaves perform labor, and their labor is worth more than their board.
The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Mari happened to come to the house of Rava during the week. He saw him recite a blessing over wine before the meal, and again recite a blessing on the wine after the meal. He said to him: Well done. And so too, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that this was proper conduct.
With regard to this issue of havdala, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the house of Rava. After Shabbat, they brought before them a light and spices. Rava recited the blessing over the spices first and then the blessing over the light. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: But both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, who dispute the order of the blessings at havdala, agree that the blessing over light is first, and only then comes the blessing over the spices.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a person on his deathbed who admitted that he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, what is the halakha? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur’s son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.
Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: One who breaks bread is not permitted to break it until they bring salt or relish before each and every one seated at the table. However, the Gemara relates that Rava bar Shmuel himself happened to come to the House of the Exilarch. They brought him bread, which he immediately broke, without waiting for them to bring salt or relish. They said to him: Did the Master reconsider his halakhic ruling? He said to them: Although poor quality bread requires salt in order to give the bread flavor, and therefore one must wait before breaking bread, this refined bread served in the House of the Exilarch needs no salt, and does not require waiting.
Similarly, the Gemara relates: Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. After the meal, when they removed the table from before them, a portion [ristena] of food was sent to them from the house of the Exilarch. Rava ate it and Rabbi Zeira did not eat it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rava: Do you, Master, not hold that once the table was removed, he is forbidden to eat? Rava said to him: We are dependent upon the table of the Exilarch, and so long as he has not completed his meal, his guests have not completed their meals either.
The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. While reciting the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem in Grace after Meals, he opened with one theme: Have compassion on Jerusalem, and concluded with two themes: Both the building of Jerusalem and Who redeems Israel. Rav Ḥisda said derisively: It takes great fortitude to conclude with two themes. How could you conclude with two themes? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may not conclude with two themes? Each blessing has its own particular ending.
The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants.
The Gemara continues: Rav Mattana had not seen the city of Neharde’a for thirteen years. That very day he arrived. Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry? Rav Mattana said to him: This is what Shmuel said at that time: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said: From now on, anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave.
The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants.
§ 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.
Returning to the discussion of feeding dogs, the Gemara cites additional statements on the topic. Rabbi Yona taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The righteous man takes knowledge of the cause of the poor” (Proverbs 29:7)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows that for a dog, its sustenance is scarce and they are not fed sufficiently. Therefore, its food remains in its intestines for three days so that the dog will be sustained by that food, as we learned in a mishna dealing with the halakhot of ritual impurity: After an animal eats flesh from a corpse, how long does its food remain in its intestines undigested and therefore ritually impure? In the case of a dog it is for three twenty-four hour periods, and for fowl and fish, who digest their food quickly, it is the equivalent of the time it takes for the flesh to fall into the fire and be consumed by the fire.
The Gemara asks: What are they asking? What is the basis of the question? The Gemara explains: This is what they are asking, like this statement of Rav Idi bar Avin, who said: This matter, the authority of the Nasi to grant permission, was given to the house of the Nasi to raise its stature. Therefore, must permission be received, since the request itself honors the Nasi? Or, perhaps because the individual in question is an Elder who sits and studies Torah in a yeshiva, there is no need. Rav Tzadok ben Ḥaluka rose to his feet and said: I saw Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra, who was an Elder who sat in the yeshiva and who stood before the grandfather of this current Nasi, ask permission from him to permit firstborn animals.
And furthermore, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Mani, Rabbi Yona’s son, was persecuted by members of the house of the Nasi. He prostrated himself upon his father’s grave and said to him: Father, Father, these men are persecuting me. One day, those men were passing there, by the grave, and the legs of their horses became stuck in the ground until they accepted upon themselves not to persecute Rabbi Mani anymore.
The Temple musicians were slaves of priests; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The musicians were not slaves, but Israelites from the family of the house of Pegarim and the family of the house of Tzippara from the city of Emaum, and their lineage was sufficiently pure that they would marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites.
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the rumors they spread. Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
The Gemara relates: When the members of the household of bar Maryon, son of Ravin, would beat their flax, the chaff [rakta] would fly off and harm people. Those people came before Ravina to complain. Ravina said to them: When we say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to his arrows, this statement applies only when the damaging item moves by his direct force. Here, by contrast, it is the wind that carries the chaff.
The Gemara relates: The members of the household of King Munbaz would do so, i.e., hang mezuzot on sticks, in their inns, i.e., when they would sleep in an inn. They would not do this in order to fulfill the mitzva, as one who sleeps in an inn is exempt from placing a mezuza, but in remembrance of the mezuza. Since they would travel frequently, they wanted to remember the mitzva of mezuza, which they did not fulfill often.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a baraita: And the household of King Munbaz would perform three matters, and the Sages would mention them favorably for their behavior in this regard. They would engage in intercourse by day; and they would examine before and after intercourse with wool [bemeila] of Parhava, which is very white and would show any stain; and they would practice ritual impurity and purity with regard to snow. Regardless of the meaning of the last two matters, in any event this baraitateaches that they would engage in intercourse by day, which indicates that this practice is not prohibited.
Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from the continuation of the mishna cited earlier (Bekhorot 28b): There was an incident involving a cow of the household of Menaḥem whose womb was removed, and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which is forbidden for consumption. And based on the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon, the questioner fed it to the dogs.
The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government. Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the Sages exempted them from the general decree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans, this is considered one of the ways of the Amorites, i.e., a gentile practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3). Despite this, the Sages permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi, because he had close ties with the government. Likewise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom, because they had close ties with the government.
And Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Rabbi Ḥanina permitted the members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to drink wine transported in a gentile’s wagons even though the wine was sealed only with one seal. He was not concerned that perhaps the gentile may have opened the barrel and poured wine libations to idolatry from it or touched it, which would prohibit drinking it. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana adds: And I do not know if that is because Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits drinking wine from a gentile that was protected by a single seal, or if it was because the gentile would not dare to open these specific casks due fear of the household of the Nasi, but in general Rabbi Ḥanina prohibited drinking wine protected by a single seal.
But didn’t Tamar become pregnant from the first act of intercourse, despite the fact that she was a virgin at the time of her sexual act with Judah? Rav Naḥman said: Tamar broke her hymen with her finger prior to intercourse, and it is due to this that she became pregnant from the first act of intercourse, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: All of those women from the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who break their hymens are named Tamar by nickname. And why are they named Tamar? They are called this on account of Tamar, who broke her hymen with her finger. The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there Er and Onan, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin.
The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were required to bring as a present for the authorities an ox of a fattener on their festival day. They deprived themselves of forty-thousand dinars, i.e., they paid this sum as a bribe, to ensure that they would not have to bring it on the actual day of their festival, but rather on the next day. They deprived themselves again, i.e., they paid a further bribe, of another forty-thousand dinars, to ensure that they would not have to bring it alive but rather slaughtered. They deprived themselves again and paid yet another bribe of forty-thousand dinars to ensure that they would not have to bring it at all.
It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.
He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does.
The Gemara relates: The members of Rav Pappa’s household would carefully pour beer from one vessel to another so that the dregs from one vessel would not pass to the other. Rav Aḥa from Difti said to Ravina: But there are the final drops, which remain when one pours the beer into another vessel. When pouring the final drops from the dregs left in the vessel, one is in violation of the prohibition of selecting. He replied: In Rav Pappa’s house they would leave the final drops in the first vessel together with the dregs. They would not attempt to separate them, as the last drops were not significant to the household of Rav Pappa, because beer was always readily available in his house.
The Gemara continues to wax hyperbolic: Rabbi Abbahu ate fruits of Genosar until the sweet, lush fruits made his skin so slippery that a fly would slip from his forehead. And Rav Ami and Rav Asi would eat them until their hair fell out. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish would eat them until he became confused. And then Rabbi Yoḥanan would tell the household of the Nasi about his condition and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia would send the authorities after him and they would take him to his house.
And Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Rabbi Ḥanina permitted the members of the household of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to drink wine transported in a gentile’s wagons even though the wine was sealed only with one seal. He was not concerned that perhaps the gentile may have opened the barrel and poured wine libations to idolatry from it or touched it, which would prohibit drinking it. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana adds: And I do not know if that is because Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits drinking wine from a gentile that was protected by a single seal, or if it was because the gentile would not dare to open these specific casks due fear of the household of the Nasi, but in general Rabbi Ḥanina prohibited drinking wine protected by a single seal.
§ The Gemara relates that Ami of Vardina was the examiner of firstborns in the household of the Nasi. On Festivals he would not examine firstborn blemishes. They came and told Rabbi Ami about this. He said to them: He does well not to examine them. The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ami himself examine firstborns for blemishes on a Festival? The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Ami would examine the blemishes of firstborns, it was on the day before the Festival that he would examine them, to see whether the blemishes were permanent or temporary.
With regard to the same issue, Rav Huna said: An adult who rounds the head of a minor boy is liable to receive lashes, despite the fact that the child himself is not obligated to observe mitzvot. Rav Adda bar Ahava, who disputed this ruling, said to Rav Huna: And with regard to your sons, who shaves them and rounds the corners of their heads? After all, you maintain that an adult may not round the head of a minor. Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova my wife does it, as she is not prohibited from rounding their heads. Rav Adda bar Ahava exclaimed in anger: Ḥova should bury her sons if she acts in this manner. The Gemara reports: During the years that Rav Adda bar Ahava was alive, Rav Huna’s children did not survive. His children died due to the curse pronounced by Rav Adda.
Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova, my wife, watches the animals to ensure that they do not graze on land belonging to others. Rav Adda bar Ahava cursed Rav Huna and said to him: May Ḥova bury her son! In all the years of Rav Adda bar Ahava, no children of Rav Huna from Ḥova survived, due to this curse. There are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav Huna says that Rav says: We in Babylonia rendered ourselves like those of Eretz Yisrael with regard to raising small domesticated animals, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.
Also, Hugras ben Levi knew a chapter in the art of music, as will be explained, and he did not want to teach it to others. And the scribe ben Kamtzar did not want to teach a special act of writing. He was expert at writing all four letters of a four-letter name simultaneously. About the first ones, who were mentioned favorably, it is stated: “The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing” (Proverbs 10:7); and about these who were concerned only for themselves it is stated: “But the name of the wicked shall rot” (Proverbs 10:7).
§ The mishna related that Hugras ben Levi knew a lesson in the art of music and he did not want to teach it to others. It was taught in a baraita: When Hugras ben Levi projects his voice in a sweet melody, he places his thumb into his mouth and places his finger between the strings of a lyre and sings. This produced a sound so sweet that his brethren the priests were abruptly taken aback.
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin states another halakha involving property that is given to the priests. With regard to a field that was consecrated by its owner and was not redeemed by him, which goes out of his possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, one gives it to the members of the priestly watch serving when the Jubilee Year occurred, i.e., the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the beginning of the Jubilee Year occurred on Shabbat, which is the day on which the priestly watches rotate, what is the halakha? Which priestly watch receives the property? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ḥulfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.
The Gemara comments: Abaye relied on this report and went and married Ḥuma, the daughter of Isi, son of Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda. Ḥuma had previously married Raḥava of Pumbedita, and he died, and then she married Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he died; and he, Abaye, married her nevertheless, without concern that she had been established to be a woman whose husbands die; and he died as well while married to her.
The Gemara asks: And does a widower who married a widow not require a benediction to be recited? But didn’t Rav Naḥman say: Huna bar Natan said to me that it was taught: From where is it derived that the benediction of the grooms is recited in a quorum of ten men? It is as it is stated with regard to Boaz, who married Ruth: “And he took ten men of the Elders of the city and said: Sit you here, and they sat” (Ruth 4:2). And when Boaz married Ruth, he was a widower marrying a widow. As that is the primary source for the obligation to recite the benediction, apparently the benediction is recited even in that case.
§ Apropos the source for the benediction of the grooms, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Naḥman said: Huna bar Natan said to me that it was taught: From where is it derived that the benediction of the grooms is recited in a quorum of ten men? It is as it is stated: “And he took ten men of the Elders of the city and said: Sit you here, and they sat” (Ruth 4:2). And Rabbi Abbahu said that the source is from here: “In assemblies [mak’helot], bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel” (Psalms 68:27). This verse indicates that a congregation [kahal], which contains at least ten men, blesses God when reciting a benediction related to the source of Israel, i.e., conjugal relations, which will lead to the birth of Jewish children.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: I also say something similar, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi, we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, who enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan is different, as he himself was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.
The Gemara cites a third version of this discussion. Huna Mar bar Mareimar raised a contradiction between the mishnayot before Ravina and resolved it himself. We learned in the mishna: And all those who say: Take what is yours and bring money, each of them is considered an unpaid bailee. And apparently the same is true for one who said: I completed the work with it. And Huna Mar bar Mareimar raises a contradiction from the aforementioned mishna: If the borrower said to the lender: Send the animal to me, and he sent it to him and it died on the way, the borrower is liable, and similarly when he returns it. And he resolves this contradiction in accordance with that which Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this halakhaonly when he returned it during the period of its loan. But if he returned it after the period of its loan, he is exempt.
Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: What about the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet? Do they require inspection as well? Rav Ashi said to him: The simanim are hard and resistant to damage in falling. Therefore, one need not inspect them.
The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in the large duct of a liver. Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi, deemed the animal a tereifa, while Rav Adda bar Minyumi deemed it kosher. They came and asked Ravina about the issue, and he said to them: Take the robe of those who deemed it a tereifa. They must pay restitution to the owner of the animal, who was wrongfully forced to discard his kosher meat.
Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, what about a case where the debt is transferred to these members of the house of bar Elyashiv? As, those implacable people bind debtors with handcuffs and take their money immediately when the time for repayment arrives. They certainly would not add to the time that the borrower has to repay the first loan, and he would not willingly pledge himself to them. So too, will you say that they do not acquire the money in the presence of all three parties, as the borrower would not agree to this arrangement?
Huna Mar, son of Rava, from Parzakya, said to Rav Ashi: Let us do so as well in similar cases and examine whether there is blood that is obscured by semen or another substance. Rav Ashi said to him:
With regard to the matter itself, Huna, son of Mar Zutra, said to Ravina: Since the baraitateaches: He unloaded them, which indicates that unloading the merchandise constitutes the act of acquisition, what difference is there to me if he fixed a price, and what difference is there to me if he did not fix a price? Ravina said to him: If he fixed a price he has made up his mind to sell, and therefore the transaction can take place. If he did not fix a price, he has not made up his mind to sell and the transaction does not occur. In any event, no convincing proof has been found with regard to the halakha in a case where the vessels of the buyer are in the domain of the seller.
On another occasion, Rav Pappa was sitting and he raised the same dilemma. Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Pappa: We learn in a baraita: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? The verse states: “And he.” Leprosy is an example of a blemish, so it is prohibited for a High priest afflicted with leprosy to marry a widow. When Rav Pappa heard this baraita, he arose and kissed him on his head and gave him his daughter to marry, due to his appreciation for his expertise in Torah study.
The Gemara answers based on a baraita. Come and hear: Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias were stringent with themselves not to sell at all, even in private. Hunters of animals, fowlers, and fishermen may hunt their quarry discreetly for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko were stringent with themselves not to hunt at all. Groats makers who crack grain into groats called Ḥilka, targis, and tisanei, crack the grain in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The groats makers of Tzippori were stringent with themselves not to crack grain at all. According to Rabbi Yosei, the stringencies involve refraining from work entirely.
§ 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
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.
Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi performed an action and ruled that if they separated, that is not the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rav Ḥiyya, from the city of Hurmiz Ardeshid, told me that Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov told him in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: If they separated, that is not the halakha. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established. This is also taught in a baraita: A son who separated himself from his father’s finances and a wife who became divorced are like all other people with regard to establishing the presumption of ownership.
The Gemara relates: A certain magus said to Ameimar: From your midpoint and up is in the domain of Hurmiz, the god of good, who created the significant and important parts of the body, and from your midpoint and down is in the domain of Ahurmiz, the god of bad. Ameimar said to him: If so, how does Ahurmiz allow Hurmiz to urinate in his territory? A person drinks with his mouth, which is in his upper half, and urinates from below.
In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, was sitting and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, because Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture. And he stopped.
And there are those who say that he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the disseminator after the latter was executed by the government, thrown in the street, and dragged along by something else, a euphemism for a pig. He said: Shall a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt? For this reason he went out and sinned.
In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel was standing and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, as Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture, and he stopped.
The homeowner said to him: I swear by the Temple service that it was so. I had no money available at the time because I vowed and consecrated all my property on account of Hyrcanus, my son, who did not engage in Torah study. The homeowner sought to avoid leaving an inheritance for his son. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, the Sages of that generation, they dissolved all my vows. At that point, the homeowner had immediately gone to pay his worker. Now the homeowner said: And you, just as you judged favorably, so may God judge you favorably.
§ The mishna taught that during the war of Titus the Sages decreed that a person should not teach his son Greek. The Sages taught that this decree came about as a result of the following incident: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other in their civil war, Hyrcanus was outside of Jerusalem, besieging it, and Aristoblus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box from inside the city, and those on the outside would send up animals for them to bring the daily offerings in the Temple.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita the background for this halakha: When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem, while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside. And every day the people inside would lower down money in a box from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Hyrcanus, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who went outside with a scarf on his shoulder on Shabbat. However, a thread from the garment was tied around his finger so that the garment would not fall. When this matter came before the Sages, they said: It is permitted to go out in that manner even if a thread is not tied around one’s finger. And likewise, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The halakha is that one may go outside with a garment around one’s shoulders even if a thread from the garment is not tied around one’s finger.
The baraita continues: There was an incident involving Hyrcanus, the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, who would tie his phylacteries with strips of purple wool, and his father did not say anything to him. Is it possible that that righteous man saw his son doing something improper and he did not object to his conduct? The Sages said to him: Yes, it is possible that his son acted improperly, as Rabbi Eliezer did not see him, and if he had seen him, he would not have allowed him to do so. This concludes the baraita.
The Sage, Ifa, said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: You, who are students of Rabbi Yoḥanan, act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. We will act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina.
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
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.
This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven.
The Gemara relates another story that deals with prayer for rain. There was a certain man who was sentenced to be flogged by Rava’s court because he had relations with a gentile woman. Rava flogged the man and he died as a result. When this matter was heard in the house of the Persian King Shapur, he wanted to punish Rava for imposing the death penalty, as he thought, without the king’s permission. Ifra Hormiz, mother of King Shapur, said to her son: Do not interfere and quarrel with the Jews, as whatever they request from God, their Master, He gives them.
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa had a certain neighbor who was building a house, but the ceiling beams were not long enough to reach from one wall to the other. She came before Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and said to him: I built my house, but my ceiling beams do not reach the walls. He said to her: What is your name? She said to him: My name is Ikku. He said: If so [ikku], may your beams reach your walls.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out sacred scrolls or their coverings that became tattered due to an insect called mekek that destroys scrolls, and another type of mekek that destroys their coverings, is any amount. Rabbi Yehuda said: These insects, the mekek that destroys scrolls, the tekhakh that attacks silk, and the ila that eats grapes, and the pe that eats figs, and the ha that eats pomegranates, all pose danger to one who swallows them. The Gemara relates: A certain student was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan and was eating figs. The student said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: My teacher, are there thorns in figs? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The pe killed that fellow. The insect in the fig had punctured the student’s throat.
like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal and sixissarfor issuing a ruling concerning a large animal. They permitted this provided that he would be paid whether it turned out that the firstborn was unblemished or whether it was blemished.
MISHNA: Additional blemishes that permit the slaughter of the firstborn include those where the bone of its foreleg or the bone of its hind leg was broken, even though it is not conspicuous. With regard to these blemishes listed in this chapter, Ila, who was expert in blemishes of the firstborn, enumerated them in Yavne, and the Sages deferred to his expertise.
And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burnteruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that there was one decree issued immediately to subject teruma to burning? Didn’t Ilfa say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? The Gemara infers from this that, with regard to hands alone, the beginning of their decree was to render teruma that came into contact with them impure to the point of burning; however, with regard to other matters, they did not immediately issue so severe a decree.
Ilfai, and some say it was the Sage Ilfa, also raised a contradiction: It is written in the list of God’s attributes: “And abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6), and it is written in the same verse: “And truth,” which implies the attribute of justice. He answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “And truth,” i.e., God employs strict justice, but in the end, when He sees that the world cannot survive on judgment based only on truth and justice: “And abundant in kindness,” i.e., He is merciful.
Ilfai, and some say it was the Sage Ilfa, also raised a contradiction: It is written in the list of God’s attributes: “And abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6), and it is written in the same verse: “And truth,” which implies the attribute of justice. He answered: Initially, at the time of judgment: “And truth,” i.e., God employs strict justice, but in the end, when He sees that the world cannot survive on judgment based only on truth and justice: “And abundant in kindness,” i.e., He is merciful.
The Gemara relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was a Christian philosopher [pilosofa] in their neighborhood
It was further related that Rabbi Eliezer had a certain disciple who issued a halakhic ruling in his presence. Rabbi Eliezer said to his wife, Imma Shalom: I will be surprised if this one completes his year, i.e., if he lives until the end of the year. And so it was, he did not complete his year.
The Gemara further relates: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. From that incident forward, she would not allow Rabbi Eliezer to lower his head and recite the taḥanun prayer, which includes supplication and entreaties. She feared that were her husband to bemoan his fate and pray at that moment, her brother would be punished. A certain day was around the day of the New Moon, and she inadvertently substituted a full thirty-day month for a deficient twenty-nine-day month, i.e., she thought that it was the New Moon, when one does not lower his head in supplication, but it was not. Some say that a pauper came and stood at the door, and she took bread out to him. The result was that she left her husband momentarily unsupervised.
The Gemara relates: Imrata bat Talei was a priest’s daughter who committed adultery. Rav Ḥama bar Toviyya surrounded her with bundles of branches and burned her.
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they did not hear this explanation given by Rabba bar Rav Sheila. They raised the dilemma: Does the expression: And the sun sets, refer to the actual setting of the sun, and does: And it is purified, mean the day clears away? Or perhaps it refers to the setting of its light at sunset, in which case what is the meaning of: And it is purified? It refers to the purification of the person. In other words, in Eretz Yisrael, they attempted to clarify the halakha based on the biblical passage, but were unable to do so.
In order to ease the harsh meaning of this verse, in the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they interpreted it with a slight adjustment: “She has fallen but she shall fall no more; rise, virgin of Israel.” Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak adds: Even so, David went and provided support, through divine inspiration. Although King David did not include a verse beginning with the letter nun alluding to Israel’s downfall, he foresaw the verse that would be written by Amos through divine inspiration; and the very next verse, which begins with the letter samekh, reads: “The Lord upholds the fallen and raises up those who are bowed down” (Psalms 145:14). Therefore, through divine inspiration, David offered hope and encouragement; although the virgin of Israel may have fallen, the Lord upholds the fallen.
Mar Zutra said: The time of finding refers to finding a lavatory. As most places did not have a sewage system, one was forced to relieve himself outside the city. Because of this unpleasantness, finding a suitable location was called by Mar Zutra, the time of finding. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: This explanation of Mar Zutra is preferable to all of them, as the term motza is explicitly associated in the Bible (see II Kings 10:27) with the lavatory (Rabbi Abraham Moshe Horovitz).
Similarly, Hillel the Elder would expound common language as well, as it is taught in a baraita: The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.
It was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation,” that these are the inhabitants of Barbarya and the inhabitants of Martenai, who walk naked in the marketplace, as none is more despised and abominable before the Omnipresent than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These are the Ḥabbarim, a sect of Persian priests. The Gemara relates: When they said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Ḥabbarim have come to Babylonia, he shuddered and fell off his chair, out of concern for the Jews living there. They said to him: There is a way to deal with their persecution, as they accept bribes. Upon hearing that not all was lost, he straightened himself and sat in his place once again.
in the future, will bubble from under the threshold of the Temple. From this point forward, the spring will grow in strength and rise until it reaches the opening of David’s house, i.e., his grave, which is outside of Jerusalem. When it reaches the opening of David’s house, it will become a flowing river in which zavim and zavot, menstruating women, and women after childbirth will bathe to purify themselves. As it is stated: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for purification and for sprinkling” (Zechariah 13:1).
Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.
§ With regard to the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: An old man from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem related to me: In this valley that lies before you, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, killed 2,110,000 people. And in Jerusalem itself he killed 940,000 people on one stone, until the blood of his victims flowed and touched the blood of Zechariah to fulfill what is stated: “And blood touches blood” (Hosea 4:2).
The Gemara relates a story on a similar topic: The inhabitants of Nineveh sent a question to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: People such as us, who require rain even during the season of Tammuz, and who live in areas where rain falls all year round, what should we do when there is a drought during the summer? Are we likened to individuals or are we likened to a community? The Gemara explains the practical difference between these two options: Are we likened to individuals and therefore we pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer? Or are we likened to a community and we pray for rain in the ninth blessing, the blessing of the years? He sent his answer to them: You are likened to individuals and therefore you pray for rain in the blessing: Who listens to prayer.
Our Sages taught a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya permitted three activities to the inhabitants of Tiberias: They may draw water from the sea through a hole cut out of a balcony on Shabbat, and they may insulate produce in the pods of legumes, and they may dry themselves on Shabbat with a towel [aluntit].
the inhabitants of Tiberias are considered like one who does so in order not to neglect his usual work. Most of them are ordinary laborers. It can be assumed that if they rose early to bring home straw or stalks in which to store their produce, they did so only to save work time.
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rav Sheshet the one who objected on the basis of this very baraita? As Rav Sheshet said to the interpreter of Rav Ḥisda: Raise the following dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha with regard to carrying the blood performed by a non-priest? He said to him: It is valid, and a verse supports me: “And they slaughtered the Paschal offering and the priests sprinkled with their hand, and the Levites flayed” (II Chronicles 35:11). This verse indicates that the priests took the blood from the hands of the Levites, from which it can be inferred that the Levites carried the blood from the place of slaughtering to the place of sprinkling.
Rav Ḥana bar Aḥa said that the Sages in the school of Rav say: There are four creations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, yet He, as it were, regrets that He created them, as they do more harm than good. And these are they: Exile, Chaldeans, and Ishmaelites, and the evil inclination. Exile, as it is written: “Now therefore, for what am I here, says the Lord, seeing that My people is taken away for naught” (Isaiah 52:5). God Himself is asking: For what am I here? Chaldeans, as it is written: “Behold the land of the Chaldeans, this is the people that was not” (Isaiah 23:13), meaning, if only they never were.
Ishmaelites, as it is written: “The tents of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure, in whatsoever God brings with His hand” (Job 12:6). God brought upon Himself these Arabs that dwell in the deserts in tents. The evil inclination, as it is written: “On that day, says the Lord, will I assemble her that is lame, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I corrupted” (Micah 4:6). God is saying that He created the evil inclination that led the people to sin and to be cast into exile.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, for Shmuel said: Any rending of garments that is not done at the time of the most intense grief, i.e., the time of death, is not considered proper rending of garments. And any wrapping of the head that is not done in the manner of the wrapping of the Ishmaelites, who wrap their heads on all sides, is not considered proper wrapping. Since Shmuel requires that a mourner wrap his head in this special manner, one who acts in this way on Shabbat openly displays his mourning, as people do not ordinarily wrap their heads in this manner. What is this wrapping? Rav Naḥman demonstrated the procedure by covering up his face to the sides of the beard, leaving only the center of his face exposed.
Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda ate from it, but Rav Sheshet did not eat from it. Rav Naḥman said in a jesting manner: What can I do for Rav Sheshet, who does not eat deer meat? Rav Sheshet said to him: How can I eat it, as Isi taught, and some say that this should be read as a question: Didn’t Isi teach: And, so too, Rabbi Yosei would prohibit this procedure even on the two Festival days of the Diaspora?
Isi taught in a baraita: Women are also exempt from the prohibition: Do not make baldness upon your heads, a prohibition against tearing out one’s hair in grief over someone’s death. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Isi? The Gemara explains that he teaches as follows: The verse states: “You are the sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1–2). This verse, which applies to sons and not daughters, is referring to causing baldness, and therefore this prohibition includes only men.
The Gemara asks: But one can say that the limitation of sons and not daughters applies both to causing baldness and to cutting, and when the verse writes: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God,” that is written with regard to scoring oneself. The prohibition against scoring oneself is derived from a verbal analogy from a verse stated with regard to priests (see Leviticus 21:5), which applies to both men and women. The Gemara answers: Isi maintains that scoring oneself and cutting
§ When Isi bar Hini ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yoḥanan found him teaching the mishna to his son. Isi taught that the obligation of the first sheared wool applies only in the case of sheep [reḥelim], the masculine plural form of raḥel, meaning a sheep. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: You should teach him using the term reḥelot, the feminine plural form. Isi said to him in reply: I teach the mishna in accordance with that which is written: “Two hundred reḥelim” (Genesis 32:15). Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: The language of the Torah is distinct and the language of the Sages is distinct, i.e., these are like two separate languages, and the Sages do not always use the same forms that appear in the Bible. In this case, they use reḥelot rather than reḥelim.
With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, Ulla said: Behind a fence, one need not distance himself from people and may defecate immediately. In a valley or open field, one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence one must distance himself sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, one must distance himself sufficiently so that no one can see him.
Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of: So long as another does not see him, which was the standard that Isi bar Natan said? Sufficient that another person cannot see his nakedness, although he does see him.
§ Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei for three straight days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? Vardimus said to him: Let the Master say what he, my father, is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: With regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we have a verse that teaches this halakha?
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
Rav Asi said to him, linking in a fanciful manner his own name to the various names of an important tanna: I am Isi ben Yehuda, who is Isi ben Gur Arye, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mahalalel, and this name alludes to a copper mortar [asita], over which rot has no power, i.e., no harm will befall me. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: And I am Sheila bar Avina, and my father’s name alludes to an iron pestle [bukhna], which smashes a copper mortar, i.e., harm may befall you through the merit of my ancestors.
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
Rav Asi said to him, linking in a fanciful manner his own name to the various names of an important tanna: I am Isi ben Yehuda, who is Isi ben Gur Arye, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mahalalel, and this name alludes to a copper mortar [asita], over which rot has no power, i.e., no harm will befall me. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: And I am Sheila bar Avina, and my father’s name alludes to an iron pestle [bukhna], which smashes a copper mortar, i.e., harm may befall you through the merit of my ancestors.
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
Rav Asi said to him, linking in a fanciful manner his own name to the various names of an important tanna: I am Isi ben Yehuda, who is Isi ben Gur Arye, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mahalalel, and this name alludes to a copper mortar [asita], over which rot has no power, i.e., no harm will befall me. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: And I am Sheila bar Avina, and my father’s name alludes to an iron pestle [bukhna], which smashes a copper mortar, i.e., harm may befall you through the merit of my ancestors.
Isi ben Menaḥem says: There is no need to derive this halakha from the verse. It may be learned by an a fortiori inference: With regard to the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity, a lenient matter for which there is no court-imposed capital punishment, the Torah does not differentiate. It is prohibited for an impure person to enter the Tabernacle no matter where it stands. Therefore, with regard to the impurity of a married woman, which is stringent and carries the penalty of strangulation, all the more so is it not clear that the Torah does not differentiate? The dust must be brought from the Sanctuary no matter where it stands. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle”? It teaches that one should not bring dust from his own basket and place it directly into the water; he must first place it on the floor.
When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: We do find ashes referred to as dust in the context of the red heifer (Numbers 19:17). They likewise hold that ashes may also be used instead of dust to cover the blood of a slaughtered bird or undomesticated animal (see Leviticus 17:13). What is the halakha here, with regard to the water of a sota? May ashes replace dust? Although elsewhere ashes may be referred to as dust, here it is written: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,” indicating that dust in particular is required, since dust comes from the ground. Or perhaps the phrase “on the floor of the Tabernacle” comes only to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Yehuda or in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Menaḥem. If so, perhaps ashes are acceptable as well.
The Gemara asks: That is also obvious, as the Torah states explicitly that one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally without witnesses and forewarning is punishable by karet, and that when there are witnesses and forewarning he is executed by stoning. The Gemara answers: This came to teach us in accordance with the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya in which matters of Oral Torah were briefly summarized, and in it was written: Isi ben Yehuda says: The primary categories of prohibited labor on Shabbat are forty-less-one, and he is liable only for one. This expression is unclear, and it would seem that it means that one who performs all of the prohibited labors is only liable to bring one sin-offering.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical ramification of determining precisely which prohibited labor the wood gatherer performed? The Gemara answers: The ramification is with regard to the statement of Rav, as Rav said: I found a hidden scroll in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya. And in it, it is written that Isi ben Yehuda says: The number of primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat is forty-less-one. And if one performed all of them in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. The Gemara asks: One and no more? We learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tally was included to teach that if one performed all the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness, during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one.
The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: With regard to that which the Torah said: “And no man shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before God your Lord three times in the year” (Exodus 34:24), this teaches that your cow shall graze in the meadow and no beast will harm it, and your rooster shall peck in the garbage dump and no marten [Ḥulda] shall harm it. In other words, your property will be protected while everyone ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival, despite the fact that the farm will not be defended.
The Gemara asks: Is there not? But isn’t it taught in a baraita reported by Isi, father of Rabbi Zeira, and some say it was taught by the brother of Rabbi Zeira before Rabbi Zeira: If at first one did not have his own garment to rend, and he acquired one during the seven-day period of mourning, he should rend it then. But if he acquired it only after the seven-day period of mourning, he does not rend it.
From here you derive the halakha with regard to the entire Torah; in all cases, the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. The Gemara elaborates. Just as with regard to a nazirite, whose prohibition against eating grapes is not an eternal prohibition, as he will be permitted to eat grapes once his period of naziriteship is over, and furthermore, his prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit from wine, and there is dissolution for his prohibition against eating grape products by requesting a Sage to release him from his vow, nevertheless, in his case, the Torah rendered the legal status of the taste of food forbidden to him like that of its substance; with regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, whose prohibition is an eternal prohibition [issuro issur olam] and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not right that the Torah should render the legal status of the taste of its forbidden food like that of its substance?
“Bind [isru] with dense-leaved branches [ba’avotim] on the Festival until the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27), which alludes to both the binding of the lulav and to the myrtle branch, referred to in the Torah as the branch of a dense-leaved tree [anaf etz avot]. Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon HaMeḥozi, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaMakkoti: With regard to anyone who establishes an addition [issur] to the Festival on the day after the Festival by eating and drinking, the verse ascribes him credit as though he built an altar and sacrificed an offering upon it, as it is stated: “Add [isru] to the Festival with fattened animals [ba’avotim] until the horns of the altar.”
To reconcile the baraitot, Rav Pappa said: When the baraitateaches that an expert is exempt from liability, it is referring to renowned experts such as the money changers Dankhu and Issur, whose expertise is so great that they do not need to learn about assessing currency at all. The Gemara asks: But if they are so proficient, in what did they err? The Gemara answers: They erred with regard to a coin from a new press, which at that time was leaving the press, and they did not know its value.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a person on his deathbed who admitted that he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, what is the halakha? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur’s son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.
The Gemara comments: And if one might object that the gentile is presumably not concerned because he knows that the Jew will not return until the end of Shabbat, didn’t Rava say: Issur the Convert told me: When we were still gentiles, before converting, we used to say: Jews do not actually observe Shabbat, as, if they observe Shabbat, how many wallets would be found in the marketplace that the Jews could not take on Shabbat? And I did not know that we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who finds a wallet on Shabbat may carry it in increments of less than four cubits. Evidently, gentiles assume that a Jew would violate Shabbat for monetary gain.
The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel’s silence indicate that he accepted Rabbi Elazar’s objection and retracted his statement, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from the following incident. Come and hear: There was a certain alleyway that Ivut bar Ihi lived in, which contained only one house and one courtyard. He erected a side post for it, and Shmuel permitted him to carry in it.
And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of residence. Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere, and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even though he lived there by himself. In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence. Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently, the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam.
Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard what he had done and became angry with him. When Rabbi Ḥiyya came at some later date to visit him, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside? By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house. Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had taken the matter to heart and was insulted, and so he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, as a self-imposed punishment, for thirty days.
Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Hoshaya: What does the Babylonian, i.e., Rabbi Ḥiyya, who came from Babylonia, say about this matter? Rabbi Hoshaya was silent and did not say anything. Bar Kappara said to him: Do we require the statement of Iyya, i.e., Ḥiyya? Let us review the earlier ruling, as the baraita teaches that the verse that states: “For a son or for a daughter” (Leviticus 12:6), serves to include the night of the eighty-first day. This indicates that the halakha applies only in the case of a woman after childbirth.
Rav Ashi says: Huna bar Natan said to me: Once, I was standing before Izgadar, king of Persia, and my belt was raised above its appropriate height, and he lowered it into place and said to me: “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), is written about you; therefore, you should always look dignified. When I came before Ameimar and recounted this incident, he said to me: With regard to you, God’s promise to Israel: “And kings shall be your foster fathers” (Isaiah 49:23), was fulfilled.
Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.
§ What is the incident involving Yehoshua ben Peraḥya? The Gemara relates: When King Yannai was killing the Sages, Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and Jesus, his student, went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace between King Yannai and the Sages, Shimon ben Shata? sent a message to Yehoshua ben Peraḥya: From me, Jerusalem, the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt: My sister, my husband is located among you and I sit desolate. The head of the Sages of Israel is out of the country and Jerusalem requires his return.
Jesus came before Yehoshua ben Peraḥya several times and said to him: Accept our, i.e., my, repentance. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya took no notice of him. One day Yehoshua ben Peraḥya was reciting Shema and Jesus came before him with the same request. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya intended to accept his request, and signaled him with his hand to wait until he completed his prayer. Jesus did not understand the signal and thought: He is driving me away. He went and stood a brick upright to serve as an idol and he bowed to it. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then said to Jesus: Repent. Jesus said to him: This is the tradition that I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited Jews to engage in idolatry, and led Israel astray. Had Yehoshua ben Peraḥya not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil.
“There is no breach”; that our faction of Sages should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged, who caused a breach in the kingdom of David. “And no going forth”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged, who set forth on an evil path. “And no outcry”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Geihazi emerged. “In our open places”; that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., who sins in public and causes others to sin, as in the well-known case of Jesus the Nazarene.
The Sages taught: It should always be the left, weaker, hand that pushes another away and the right, stronger, hand that draws him near. In other words, even when a student is rebuffed, he should be given the opportunity to return. This is not like Elisha, who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, away with both hands.
When he came back to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yehoshua arrived at a certain inn. The innkeeper stood before him, honoring him considerably, and overall they accorded him great honor. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then sat and was praising them by saying: How beautiful is this inn. Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, said to him: My teacher, but the eyes of the innkeeper’s wife are narrow [terutot]. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said to him: Wicked one, is this what you are engaged in, gazing at women? He brought out four hundred shofarot and excommunicated him. Every day Jesus would come before him, but he would not accept his wish to return.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.
The Sages of Caesarea, and some say that it was the judges of Caesarea, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement could be explained using a different calculation: The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is one-quarter less than the perimeter of the square,
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav Amram and Rav Ḥisda disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna’im, as a halakhais taught in a baraita with regard to a purse document, i.e., a document that records an arrangement whereby one gives another money as an investment in a joint venture on condition that the profits will be divided equally between the two parties. If the person who received the money died, and this document was presented by the lender against the orphans, the judges of the exile say that the lender takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him, and he collects the entire sum. And the judges of Eretz Yisrael say that he takes an oath and collects only half of the sum.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind that came before the court in Neharde’a, and the judges of Neharde’a ruled that the daughters must be supported from the movable property that their father had left. Likewise, a case occurred in Pumbedita, and Rav Ḥana bar Bizna collected the sum from movable property. Rav Naḥman said to the judges: Go reverse your decisions, and if not, I will collect your houses [appadnaikhu] from you in order to compensate those you ruled against.
The Gemara relates: There was an incident in Neharde’a, and the judges of Neharde’a collected, on behalf of a creditor, slaves that orphans had inherited from the debtor. There was an incident in Pumbedita, and Rav Ḥana bar Bizna collected slaves from orphans as repayment for a debt. Rav Naḥman said to those judges: Go and return those slaves to the orphans, and if you do not do so, we will collect the value of the slaves from the proceeds of your own mansions in order to compensate the orphans for their loss, as you have made an elementary mistake in your ruling and therefore you are responsible to rectify it.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: There is Ulla, there is Rabbi Elazar, there are the judges of Neharde’a, and there is Rav Ḥana bar Bizna, all of whom ruled based on the assumption that the legal status of slaves is like that of land. In accordance with whose opinion does the Master, i.e., you, Rav Naḥman, hold?
The judges of Pumbedita say: Rav Yehuda took action in a case of a bundle of branches. A husband took them from his wife’s property and fed them to his animals, and Rav Yehuda ruled that this was treated as consumption of her property. The Gemara comments: Rav Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Yehuda said: If one took possession of a plot of land and consumed some of the produce of its trees that was forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] or produce of the seventh year, or a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, this is considered taking possession of the land, as he was allowed to benefit from the permitted branches.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim, who say that the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments is calculated and then divided by three, and this sum is then added to the lowest assessment. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reason of Aḥerim; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion? The judges of the Diaspora taught a baraita that accords with the opinion of Aḥerim in the previously cited baraita: An appraisal is performed to determine the sum of the difference between the two most extreme assessments and then that sum is divided by three and added to the lowest assessment. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the judges of the Diaspora. Rav Ashi said: We do not even understand the reasoning of the judges of the Diaspora; shall we then establish the halakha in accordance with their opinion?
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a family burial plot, even if one of the family sells the land designated for his own grave to another, or sells the path that will be used by the burial procession to his grave, or sells the place that will be used for standing and comforting his mourners, or sells the site that will be used for his eulogy, his family members may come and bury him in his grave even against the will of the buyer, due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name that would arise if one of the family members was not buried with the rest of his family.
Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.
§ Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosei ben Lakonya asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya: From where in the Torah is the prohibition concerning one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman [nidda] derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei ben Lakonya took a clod [kala] of earth and threw it at him in reproach and said to him: Is there a need to search the Torah for a derivation for the prohibition concerning one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? The verse states: “And a woman who is impure by her uncleanness [nidda] you shall not approach, to uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:19)?
The Gemara suggests: Let the Rabbis teach during their public lecture that affixing wool strings to a linen garment is permitted for the mitzva of ritual fringes. The Gemara answers: Wearing strings on a linen garment is prohibited because of a rabbinic decree due to the concern that people might use strings that were dyed blue with indigo [kala ilan], instead of with tekhelet, the sky-blue dye produced from the Ḥilazon (see 44b), in which case they would not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and would violate the prohibition against wearing garments containing wool and linen.
With regard to the Tosefta, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Elazar maintain that liquids have ritual impurity by Torah law at all? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: There is no impurity for liquids at all by Torah law. Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified about the grasshopper called eil kamtza that it is kosher and may be eaten; and he testified about liquids in the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they were ritually pure, as there was no decree of impurity issued with regard to them. The fact that these liquids are ritually pure indicates that by Torah law liquids cannot transmit impurity at all. Instead, that type of impurity is by rabbinic law, and rabbinic decrees of impurity were not in effect in the Temple.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: By Torah law, impurity does not apply to liquids at all? Know that this is so, as Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified concerning a grasshopper species called eil kamtza that it is kosher, and concerning the liquids of the Temple slaughterhouse that they are pure. Liquids are susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, and liquids in the Temple were not included in this decree so as not to cause additional impurity there. Since Rabbi Eliezer holds that by Torah law liquids are not susceptible to impurity, how can it be his opinion that liquids of uncertain ritual status are considered impure?
§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief” (Proverbs 28:14)? Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. The place known as the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [rispak].
§ Haggai also declared: And one accepts converts from the Karduyim and the Tarmodim. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach in a baraita: One does not accept converts from the Karduyim? Rav Ashi said: Kartuyim, not Karduyim, was stated by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. As people say in common discourse: The Kartuyim are unfit.
And there are those who say a slightly different version of this discussion. Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: One does not accept converts from the Kartuyim. What, is it not the case that Kartuyim is the same as Karduyim? If so there is a contradiction between the baraita of Rami bar Yeḥezkel and the statement of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. Rav Ashi said: No; the Kartuyim are one discrete category and the Karduyim are another discrete category, as people say: Kartuyim are unfit.
It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River. They saw that the water was rising and was murky. Shmuel said to Karna: A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and his intestines are aching, and the water is rising to greet him. Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar. Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him. He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal? Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries. Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure. Rav said to him that it is as it is stated: “And the Moabites saw the water from afar, red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).
Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name? He told him: Karna. He said to him: May it be the will of God that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.
The Gemara relates: The Sage Karna would take an istera, a small coin, from the innocent party, and an istera from the guilty party, i.e., he would charge both parties that came to him for judgment, and then he would judge their case. The Gemara asks: But how could he do so? Isn’t it written: “And you shall take no bribe” (Exodus 23:8), which indicates that a judge may not take money from either of the two litigants?
Rav Ashi said: I saw Karna’s father perform a magic trick in which he would blow his nose and cast rolls of silk from his nostrils by deceiving the eye.
§ Haggai also declared: And one accepts converts from the Karduyim and the Tarmodim. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach in a baraita: One does not accept converts from the Karduyim? Rav Ashi said: Kartuyim, not Karduyim, was stated by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. As people say in common discourse: The Kartuyim are unfit.
And there are those who say a slightly different version of this discussion. Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught: One does not accept converts from the Kartuyim. What, is it not the case that Kartuyim is the same as Karduyim? If so there is a contradiction between the baraita of Rami bar Yeḥezkel and the statement of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. Rav Ashi said: No; the Kartuyim are one discrete category and the Karduyim are another discrete category, as people say: Kartuyim are unfit.
The Gemara relates that when Abaye went to study Torah with Rav Yosef, he said the statement of Rav Dimi before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said in response: Kaylil, Abaye’s father, had one son, and he is not proper. But isn’t it written with regard to the Tabernacle in Shiloh: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh” (Psalms 78:60); and it is written: “Moreover He abhorred the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67)? These verses indicate that the Tabernacle in Shiloh was in the portion of Joseph, not of Benjamin.
Rather, what is the meaning of Rav Sheshet’s formulation: And extends up to ten? Apparently, up to ten handbreadths is that which is within the parameters of a karmelit, and above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], do not be involved with questions in the matters of Shabbat above ten handbreadths. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to what halakha and in the context of what issue did Shmuel make this statement? If you say his intention was that there is no private domain above ten handbreadths, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain and threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop it, even if the stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable, since the private domain extends up to the sky? Apparently, there is a private domain even above ten handbreadths.
The Gemara cites instructions issued by Shmuel that are similar to those of Berurya. Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], open your mouth and read from the Torah, open your mouth and study the Talmud, in order that your studies should endure in you and that you should live a long life, as it is stated: “For they are life to those who find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22). Do not read: “To those who find them [lemotzeihem],” but rather “to those who express them [lemotzi’eihem],” with their mouth.
The Gemara cites additional instructions issued by Shmuel: Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, his beloved student: Keen scholar, grab and eat, grab and drink, as the world from which we are departing is like a wedding feast, whose joy is only temporary, and one who does not take pleasure in it now will not be able to do so in the future.
And Rabbi Akiva also grew wealthy from the wife of Turnus Rufus, who converted and gave him her money, and from Ketia bar Shalom, a Roman minister who bequeathed his fortune to him.
This is also taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Her kings,” but not: All of her kings, and: “All her leaders,” but not: All of her officers. The inference learned from the wording of the verse: “Her kings,” but not: All of her kings, serves to exclude Antoninus the son of Asveirus; and the inference from the wording: “All her leaders,” but not: All of her officers, serves to exclude the Roman officer Ketia, son of Shalom.
The Gemara asks: What is it that occurred involving Ketia, son of Shalom? As there was a certain Roman emperor who hated the Jews. He said to the important members of the kingdom: If one had an ulcerous sore [nima] rise on his foot, should he cut it off and live, or leave it and suffer? They said to him: He should cut it off and live. The ulcerous sore was a metaphor for the Jewish people, whom the emperor sought to eliminate as the cause of harm for the Roman Empire.
Ketia, son of Shalom, said to them: It is unwise to do so, for two reasons. One is that you cannot destroy all of them, as it is written: “For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, says the Lord” (Zechariah 2:10). He clarified: What is it saying? Shall we say that the verse means that God has scattered them to the four winds of the world? If so, this phrase: “As the four winds,” is inaccurate, since it should have said: To the four winds. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: Just as the world cannot exist without winds, so too, the world cannot exist without the Jewish people, and they will never be destroyed. And furthermore, if you attempt to carry out the destruction of the Jews, they will call you the severed kingdom, as the Roman Empire would be devoid of Jews, but Jews would exist in other locations.
What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.
§ And furthermore, it is told: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were walking on the road together. Rabbi Meir would analyze names and discern one’s nature from his name, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were not apt to analyze names. When they came to a certain place, they looked for lodging and were given it. They said to the innkeeper: What is your name? He said to them: My name is Kidor. Rabbi Meir said to himself: Perhaps one can learn from this that he is a wicked person, as it is stated: “For they are a generation [ki dor] of upheavals” (Deuteronomy 32:20). Since it was Friday afternoon, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei entrusted their purses to him. Rabbi Meir did not entrust his purse to him but went and placed it at the grave of the innkeeper’s father.
The Sages taught in a baraita: Kimḥit had seven sons, and they all served in the office of the High Priesthood, as High Priests or as his substitute. The Sages said to her: What good deeds did you perform to merit this? She said to them: In all my days, the beams of my house never saw the braids of my hair, as she was extremely modest and was strict about covering her hair even inside her own house. They said to her: Many women did so and did not succeed to such a degree; you must have been granted a special gift from God.
The Sages taught: Once, King Agrippa wished to set his eyes on the multitudes [ukhlosin] of Israel to know how many they were. He said to the High Priest: Set your eyes on the Paschal lambs; count how many animals are brought in order to approximate the number of people. The High Priest took a kidney from each one, as the kidneys are burned on the altar, and six hundred thousand pairs of kidneys were found there, double the number of those who left Egypt. This did not reflect the sum total of the Jewish people, as it excluded those who were ritually impure or at a great distance, who did not come to offer the sacrifice. Furthermore, this was a count of the Paschal lambs and not of the people, and there was not a single Paschal lamb that did not have more than ten people registered for it. They called that Passover the Passover of the crowded, due to the large number of people.
Ravina said: Come and hear a solution from a baraita: Even King Agrippa, who regularly eats every day at nine hours, i.e., three hours before sunset, on that day of Passover eve, he may not eat until dark. Ravina infers from this baraita: Granted, if you say that we learned in the mishna that it is prohibited to eat adjacent to the lesser minḥa, this is why his actions are accounted to the greatness of Agrippa, as he refrained from eating despite the fact that the prohibition had not yet gone into effect.
There was an incident involving King Agrippa, who was coming down the road and heard Gevini the Crier’s voice at a distance of three parasangs. And when the king came to his house he sent gifts to him, since he was so impressed with the man’s voice. The Gemara notes: And even so, the voice of the High Priest was stronger and superior to his, as the Master said: And there already was an incident where the High Priest recited, in his confession that accompanied the placing of hands on his bull on Yom Kippur: Please God, and his voice was heard in Jericho. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The distance from Jerusalem to Jericho is ten parasangs.
The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The king’s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutra’s
King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur vessels of gold. Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier above the entrance of the Sanctuary. She also fashioned a golden tablet [tavla] on which the Torah portion relating to sota was written. The tablet could be utilized to copy this Torah portion, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. With regard to Nicanor, miracles were performed to his doors, the doors in the gate of the Temple named for him, the Gate of Nicanor. And the people would mention all of those whose contributions were listed favorably.
The mishna continues: King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur vessels of gold. The Gemara asks: If he wanted to donate money to beautify the Temple, he should have made the vessels themselves of gold, not just the handles.
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving King Munbaz, who liberally gave away his treasures and the treasures of his ancestors in the years of drought, distributing the money to the poor. His brothers and his father’s household joined together against him to protest against his actions, and they said to him: Your ancestors stored up money in their treasuries and added to the treasures of their ancestors, and you are liberally distributing it all to the poor. King Munbaz said to them: Not so, my ancestors stored up below, whereas I am storing above, as it is stated: “Truth will spring out of the earth and righteousness will look down from heaven” (Psalms 85:12), meaning that the righteous deeds that one has performed are stored up in heaven. My ancestors stored up treasures in a place where the human hand can reach, and so their treasures could have been robbed, whereas I am storing up treasures in a place where the human hand cannot reach, and so they are secure, as it is stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15).
The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Ḥananya: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You will see the Persians capture you, and enslave you, and force you to herd unclean animals with a golden staff. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Rabbi Yehoshua and that night he saw it in his dream. King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Shmuel said to him: You will see the Romans come and take you into captivity and force you to grind date pits in mills of gold. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Shmuel, and that night he saw it in his dream.
The Gemara asks: And perhaps there were two people named Anah, one the son of Zibeon and the other the son of Seir? Rava said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be an epithet for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some say a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is he that Rav Pappa is referring to by the epithet King Shapur? He is Rava. The verse said: “This is Anah who found the mules,” indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially in the earlier verse.
Apropos the rejoicing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, the Gemara recounts: Levi would walk before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi juggling with eight knives. Shmuel would juggle before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine without spilling. Abaye would juggle before Rabba with eight eggs. Some say he did so with four eggs. All these were cited.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: King Yannai had a city on the King’s Mountain, from which they would take six-hundred thousand bowls of sardines for those cutting figs off the trees during the course of the week from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. There were so many workers, and the fruit was so sweet, that they needed such a vast quantity of salted fish to enable them to continue with their work.
On the subject of the King’s Mountain and Eretz Yisrael, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: King Yannai had a tree on the King’s Mountain from which they would remove forty se’a of pigeons from three broods each month. When Rabbi Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: There was a city in Eretz Yisrael named Gufnit, in which there were eighty pairs of brothers who were priests, married to eighty pairs of sisters, who were all from priestly families. And to assess the frequency of that phenomenon, the Gemara relates: The Sages checked from Sura to Neharde’a, and with the exception of the daughters of Rav Ḥisda, who were married to Rami bar Ḥama and his brother Mar Ukva bar Ḥama, they could not find a similar case. And, even in the case that they found, although they, the sisters, were the daughters of a priest, they, the brothers were not priests. Throughout virtually the entire country of Babylonia, they could not find a similar circumstance.
The Gemara relates: King Yannai and the queen ate bread together. And since Yannai executed the Sages, there was no one to recite the Grace after Meals blessing on their behalf. He said to his wife: Who will provide us with a man to recite the blessing on our behalf? She said to him: Swear to me that if I bring you such a man, you will not harass him. He swore, and she brought her brother, Shimon ben Shata?. She sat him between the King’s throne and hers. The King said to him: Do you see how much honor I am according you? He responded: It is not you who honors me; rather, the Torah honors me, as it is written: “Extol her and she will exalt you; she will bring you to honor when you embrace her” (Proverbs 4:8). Yannai said to his wife: You see that he does not accept authority.
§ With regard to the abrogation of the sanctity of the firstborn in the wilderness by the Levites, the Gemara relates that Kontrokos the officer asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: In the individual count of each family of Levites you find that there were 22,300 (see Numbers 3:22–34). But in the collective count of the entire tribe you find a total of 22,000, as it is stated: “All the males from a month old and upward, were 22,000” (Numbers 3:39). Where, then, did the other three hundred Levites go?
The Gemara returns to the issue of renting out domains for the purpose of an eiruv. The Gemara relates that there was a certain alleyway in which the gentile, Laḥman bar Ristak, lived. His Jewish neighbors said to him: Rent us your domain, i.e., your right to use the alleyway, so that it will not render it prohibited for us to carry. He would not rent it to them, and therefore they could not carry in the alleyway on Shabbat.
§ Apropos the war between the kings and Abraham mentioned above, the Gemara explains a verse: “And he pursued as far as Dan. And he divided himself against them by night [laila], he and his servants, and smote them” (Genesis 14:14–15). The term “by night” [laila] appears out of place in this verse. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That angel that happened to come and assist Abraham in that war, Laila is his name, as it is stated: “And Laila said: A man-child is brought forth” (Job 3:3), indicating that there is an angel named Laila. And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: God performed for him an act of night, i.e., the stars in heaven waged war on his behalf, as it is stated: “They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera” (Judges 5:20). Reish Lakish said: The statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, the smith, is preferable to the statement of the son of the smith, Rabbi Yoḥanan.
The Gemara relates: The landlord of Rami bar Ḥama sold a donkey and erred in fixing its price. Rami bar Ḥama encountered him and noticed that he was sad. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Why are you sad? The landlord said to him: I sold a donkey and I erred in fixing its price. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Go and renege on the transaction. The landlord said to him: I have waited more than the period of time that it takes for me to show the merchandise to a merchant or to my relative. Rami bar Ḥama sent the landlord before Rav Naḥman for a ruling and Rav Naḥman said to him: The Sages taught this halakhaonly with regard to a buyer, but a seller may always renege on a transaction.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Kisma says: The two feet of one’s youth are better than the three of old age, when one walks with a cane. Woe to the one who goes and does not come back. What is this referring to? Rav Ḥisda said: Youth. Similarly, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: Youth is a crown of roses; old age is a crown of thorns. The Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Grind food with your teeth and you will find in your feet the strength to carry your body, as it is stated: “For we were sated with our bread and were well, and saw no evil” (Jeremiah 44:17). Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one; untie your sack, that is, your mouth, and insert your food. Until the age of forty years, food is beneficial; from here and on, drinking is beneficial.
The Gemara answers: Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me and my interpretation that the first part of the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the next part of the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon.
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda in response: Large-toothed one [shinnana], leave the mishna and follow after me, i.e., it should not be understood as you think. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the picker lost his train of thought. He had initially intended to pick grapes and then he forgot his initial intention and thought: It is figs that I want. But his hand unwittingly went among the grapes and he picked the grapes he had initially intended. In that case Rabbi Eliezer holds he is liable, as his initial intention was fulfilled. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds f his current intention and thought are not fulfilled, and therefore he is exempt. By contrast, in a standard case where one acts unawares, both agree that he is exempt.
Lemedin, i.e., Levi, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But why is there no remedy in this case? Let him bring loaves for the thanks offering and let him say: If this animal that is extant from the intermingled pair is the thanks offering, then these are its loaves, and they will be consumed as the loaves of the thanks offering. And if not, i.e., if the extant animal is the substitute, which is sacrificed without loaves, then let these loaves go out to be consumed as non-sacred loaves. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: But the loaves of a thanks offering must be waved in the Temple courtyard, and do we intentionally bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard?
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as it is told: They would deposit the money of orphans with Shmuel’s father for safekeeping. When Shmuel’s father died, Shmuel was not with him, and did not learn from him the location of the money. Since he did not return it, Shmuel was called: Son of him who consumes the money of orphans. Shmuel went after his father to the cemetery and said to the dead: I want Abba. The dead said to him: There are many Abbas here. He told them: I want Abba bar Abba. They said to him: There are also many people named Abba bar Abba here. He told them: I want Abba bar Abba, the father of Shmuel. Where is he? They replied: Ascend to the yeshiva on high. Meanwhile, he saw his friend Levi sitting outside the yeshiva, away from the rest of the deceased. He asked him: Why do you sit outside? Why did you not ascend to the yeshiva? He replied: Because they tell me that for all those years that you didn’t enter the yeshiva of Rabbi Afes, and thereby upset him, we will not grant you entry to the yeshiva on high.
Meanwhile, Shmuel’s father came and Shmuel saw that he was crying and laughing. Shmuel said to his father: Why are you crying? His father replied: Because you will come here soon. Shmuel continued and asked: Why are you laughing? His father replied: Because you are extremely important in this world. Shmuel said to him: If I am important, then let them grant Levi entry to the yeshiva. And so it was that they granted Levi entry to the yeshiva.
With regard to prayer while traveling, the Gemara relates: When Shmuel’s father and Levi wanted to set out on a journey in the morning, they would pray early before sunrise. When, during their journey, the time to recite Shema would arrive, they recited it.
It was related that Levi bar Buti was once reading the portion of the curses before Rav Huna, and he was stammering in his reading, as it was difficult for him to utter such harsh pronouncements. Rav Huna said to him: If you wish, you may stop where you are and a different reader will continue, for they taught one may not have two people read the curses only with regard to the curses that are recorded in Leviticus. But with regard to the curses that are recorded in Deuteronomy, one may interrupt them by having two different people read them.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of nullifying forbidden foods. Rav Shemen bar Abba says that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Gershom says that Levi bar Perata says that Rabbi Naḥum says that Rabbi Biryam says in the name of a certain elder, and his name was Rabbi Ya’akov, that the Sages in the house of the Nasi said: If a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are all permitted.
The Gemara relates that Levi bar Shmuel found Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, who were standing at the entrance of Rav Huna’s house. Levi bar Shmuel said to them: What is the halakha with regard to reassembling a weaver’s loom, which was typically a collapsible frame, on Shabbat? He said to him: It may well be done. He came before Rav Yehuda, asking him the same question, and Rav Yehuda said to him that Rav and Shmuel both said: One who reassembles a weaver’s loom on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.
The Gemara relates: Levi bar Shmuel and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya were mending mantles for the sacred scrolls of the school of Rav Yehuda. When they reached the scroll of Esther they said: This scroll of Esther does not require a mantle, as it is not as significant as the other sacred scrolls. Rav Yehuda said to them: A statement of that sort also seems to express irreverence like the irreverence typical of an epikoros, as you should not have referred to the scroll of Esther as: This scroll.
§ The Gemara relates an additional incident with regard to pigeons of a dovecote that were discussed above: Levi bar Simon transferred ownership of the produce of his dovecote, i.e., the fledglings and the eggs contained in it, to Rav Yehuda. Rav Yehuda came before Shmuel and told him of his acquisition. Shmuel said to him: Go, bang on the nest, i.e., the dovecote, so that the fledglings will rise up and you will acquire them.
because by standing on the eve of the Festival and saying: This bird and that bird I will take on the Festival, he would have effected sufficient preparation for their use on the Festival. The Gemara responds: These, the offspring and the eggs, were new produce, which Levi bar Simon himself had not yet acquired. And this is what Shmuel was saying to him: Go and bang on the nest so that the mothers will rise up, and Levi bar Simon will have then acquired the young in the nest,and consequently, he may then transfer ownership to you through acquisition by means of a cloth.
§ The Gemara relates: It once happened that Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya were walking on the road, and Levi HaSadar and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, were walking respectfully behind them, since they were younger and did not walk alongside their teachers. This question was asked before them: From where is it derived that saving a life overrides Shabbat?
Reish Lakish said in the name of Levi the Elder: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one pours the water from one barrel to another barrel so that only the water, rather than the barrel itself, is taken beyond the limit. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his usual reasoning, as he said: Water has no substance, i.e., it is not significant enough for its transfer beyond the Shabbat limit to be prohibited.
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Levi the Elder: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished only at its conclusion. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Halakhic slaughter is accomplished from the beginning to the end of the act.
The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road. Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar. Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that
The Gemara asks: How does one alter the manner in which he performs these actions? Rav Yosef said: On a weekday one first places the vinegar in a vessel and then places the shatit. On Shabbat one first places the shatit and then places the vinegar. The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, found the one who kneads in his parents’ home kneading bran on Shabbat and feeding it to his ox. He kicked him so that he would stop. When his father came and found him, he said to him: This is what your mother’s father said in the name of Rav. The Gemara interjects: And who is his mother’s father? It is Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, who said: One may knead but not feed animals, and a calf that does not take the food with its tongue may be fed on Shabbat. And this applies only when one alters the manner in which he does so.
The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya. He was cutting them only from the upper surface of the spleen. Levi said to Rav Yehuda: Go down further, i.e., remove the fat that is lower down as well. Levi’s father, Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, came and found him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: This is what your mother’s father said in the name of Rav; and who was Levi’s mother’s father? It was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He said: The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen.
He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her feet are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name.
There is a fundamental problem in the mishna that was clarified during the course of a particular incident: Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yoḥanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In Neharde’a. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yoḥanan until he agreed to teach him.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel found Rav Yehuda leaning on the bar of the door, crying. He said to him: Long-toothed one [shinnana], what are you crying for? He said to him: Is it a small matter, that which is written with regard to Sages who have sinned: “Where is he who counted, where is he who weighed? Where is he who counted the towers?” (Isaiah 33:18). He proceeded to explain: “Where is he who counted”; for they would count all the letters of the Torah. “Where is he who weighed”; for they would weigh and compare the minor and major transgressions of the Torah. “Where is he who counted the towers”; for they would teach three hundred halakhot concerning the details of tent impurity involving a wooden closet floating in the air. If they studied a subject so removed from reality in such depths, how much more so did they analyze other issues.
And Rabbi Ami said: Doeg asked Ahithophel three hundred questions with regard to a closet floating in the air, as they were both great Torah scholars. And we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 90a): Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the World-to-Come, a list that includes Doeg and Ahithophel. If such great Sages could sin and forfeit their share in the World-to-Come, we, who are less knowledgeable than they, what will be of us? He said to him: Long-toothed one, there was mud [tina] in their hearts, i.e., they had certain flaws that prevented their Torah learning from protecting them.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha with regard to a murderer himself, that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: As when a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man’s blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another.
The Gemara asks: And perhaps they were not in a straight line but staggered. That would enable the weavers to sit adjacent to each other without disturbing each other’s work. And furthermore, did they borrow from each another? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita of the Sage Luda? The verse states: “And all the wise men who performed all of the work of the Sanctuary came, each one from the work he was doing” (Exodus 36:4). From that verse it is derived: Each performed the labor from his own work, and they would not perform the labor from their friends’ work. Each person had his own tools and did not need to borrow from others.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth. What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?
What is the origin of Trajan’s Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for vows? Rav Yosef teaches that they include the following terms: Mekanamna, mekanaḥna, and mekanasna. These are verb forms of the terms konam, kona?, and konas respectively, mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of substitutes for substitute terms for dedication [Ḥerem]? The Sage Mafsha’a teaches: Ḥarakim, Ḥarakhim, and Ḥarafim. The Gemara continues: What are the substitutes for substitute terms for naziriteship [nezirut]? Rav Yosef teaches: Meḥazakna, menazaḥna, and mafiḥna.
The Gemara relates: The maidservant of Master Shmuel was taken captive. Some people redeemed her to be a maidservant and sent her to him. They sent him the following message: We hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and therefore we hold that in any case she remains your maidservant. Even if you hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna, then you should know that we redeemed her to be a maidservant, and even the Rabbis would agree that she remains your maidservant.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: There was an incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, who was baking loaves of teruma bread. And in between each and every one she would wash her hand in water and examine herself. After the last one she examined herself and found that she was impure due to menstrual blood, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the status of the loaves. And he said to her: They are all impure, due to her retroactive impurity for the previous twenty-four hours. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, then this last one is impure and the rest are all pure, as your retroactive impurity is reduced until the time of the most recent examination.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: There was another incident involving the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel who was sealing barrels of wine. And in between each and every one she would wash her hands in water and examine herself. And after the last one she examined herself and found that she was ritually impure, and she came and asked Rabban Gamliel about the wine. And he said to her: They are all impure. She said to him: My teacher, didn’t I perform an examination in between each and every one? Rabban Gamliel said to her: If so, this last one is impure and the rest are all pure.
The maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ascended to the roof and said: The upper realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the lower realms are requesting the presence of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. May it be the will of God that the lower worlds should impose their will upon the upper worlds. However, when she saw how many times he would enter the bathroom and remove his phylacteries, and then exit and put them back on, and how he was suffering with his intestinal disease, she said: May it be the will of God that the upper worlds should impose their will upon the lower worlds.
The Gemara explains the statement: And left him due to another incident. One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels [karkushta] lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.
The Gemara relates: The maidservant of Rabbi Abba bar Zutra was taken captive. A certain gentile tarmoda’a redeemed her to be his wife. The Sages sent a message to Rabbi Abba bar Zutra: If you wish to act correctly, send her a bill of manumission.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Abba sat before Rav Huna, and he was sitting and saying: Rabbi Malokh says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna said to him: Are you saying this in the name of Malokh the Arab? He says that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.
The Gemara relates a similar episode: Manyumin the jug maker had a jug [bisteka] full of honey that was left uncovered, and he was concerned it might have been contaminated by snake venom. He came before Rava to inquire as to the halakha. Rava said: With regard to what need we be concerned? First, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are prohibited due to exposure: Wine, water, and milk; and all other liquids are permitted. Honey, therefore, is permitted. And furthermore, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that exposed honey is prohibited, and this dispute concerns a matter of mortal danger, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people?
The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished.
Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent the following request to Marei bar Mar: Ask Rav Huna whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar with regard to bills of divorce or whether the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
Rav Ḥisda said to Marei, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: People say that you walk from the city of Barnish to Daniel’s synagogue, which is a distance of three parasangs [parsei], on Shabbat. Upon what do you rely? Do you rely on the huts located at the city’s outskirts that extend the Shabbat boundary toward the synagogue? Didn’t your father’s father say in the name of Rav: The law of huts does not apply in Babylonia?
We learned in the mishna that one who sees a place from which idolatry was eradicated should recite the blessing: Blessed…Who eradicated idolatry from our land. On this topic the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who sees the idol called Mercury [Markulis] recites: Blessed…who has shown patience to those who violate His will, as each day new rocks would be thrown upon the pile constructed in Mercury’ honor (Tosafot). One who sees a place from which idolatry was eradicated should recite: Blessed…Who eradicated idolatry from our land. And just as it was eradicated from this place, so too may it be eradicated from all places of Israel, and restore the hearts of their worshippers to worship You. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, one need not recite: And restore the hearts of their worshippers to worship You, since it is predominantly populated by gentiles. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even outside of Eretz Yisrael one is required to recite that formula because in the end of days all nations will convert, as it is stated: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent” (Zephaniah 3:9).
In the case of one who is an accused idol worshipper, the court asks the witness: Whom among the idols did he worship? Did he worship Peor? Did he worship Markulis? And in what manner did he worship? Was it by sacrificing an offering, or by burning incense, by pouring wine as a libation, or by prostrating before the idol?
MISHNA:Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones that are adjacent to each other at the side of Mercury [Markulis] are prohibited, as that idol was worshipped by tossing stones toward it, which then became part of the idol. But if there are only two stones, then they are permitted. And the Rabbis say: Those stones that are adjacent to Mercury and appear to have fallen from it are prohibited. But those stones that are not adjacent to it are permitted.
And Rabba said that the correct order is yod, heh, nun, kuf: Wine [yayin], havdala, candle [ner], and kiddush. And Levi said the order is kuf, nun, yod, heh:Kiddush, candle [ner], wine [yayin], and havdala. And the Rabbis say the order is kuf, yod, nun, heh:kiddush, wine [yayin], candle [ner], and havdala. Mar, son of Rabbana, said the order is nun, kuf, yod, heh: Candle [ner], kiddush, wine [yayin], and havdala. The Sage named Marta said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the proper order is nun, yod, heh, kuf: Candle [ner], wine [yayin], havdala, and kiddush.
The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar Ḥana came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.
This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar Ḥana, that Rabbi Ḥiyya called him: My brother’s son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi Ḥiyya called him: My sister’s son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son and Rav was his sister’s son, but doesn’t the Master say: Aivu, Rav’s father, and Ḥana, the father of Rabba bar Ḥana, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi Ḥiyya, were all sons of Abba bar Aḥa Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother’s son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother’s son who was also his sister’s son, as Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-brother married Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-sister; while Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son who was not his sister’s son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship.
MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow.
The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest.
GEMARA: The mishna stated that according to Rabbi Meir, over a period of twenty-five years a woman will spend a sum equal to her marriage contract from the resources of the orphans. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is it true that the poorest woman among the Jewish people, whose marriage contract is of minimal value, will not spend this amount until twenty-five years have passed, and Marta bat Baitos, who was very wealthy and whose marriage contract was worth a huge sum, will also spend a sum equal to her marriage contract within twenty-five years?
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There, the baraita that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to the First Temple, where this halakha was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. Here, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, where this halakha was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. As Rav Asi said: The wealthy Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half-se’a of dinars in to King Yannai for the fact that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.
The Gemara asks: And who are these martyrs that Rav Yosef was referring to? If you say that he was referring to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, who were martyred, 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. Rather, it is referring to the martyrs of Lod, Pappos and Luliyanos, who gave themselves up to be martyred for the sake of the Jewish people. They falsely admitted to killing the king’s daughter in order to prevent a harsh decree from being issued against the entire community. Although they were not known for exceptional piety before that event, they are considered to be extremely holy due to their martyrdom.
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.
The Gemara relates that Maryon, son of Ravin, and Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, held a team of two oxen in partnership between them, one ox apiece. An event, i.e., a death in the family, befell Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and he detached his ox from the team, preventing any work from being performed by the team, because he did not want work performed with his animal during his days of mourning. Rav Ashi said: A distinguished man like Mar, son of Rav Aḥa, is behaving this way? Granted, he is not concerned about his own loss, but is he not concerned about the loss of others, i.e., his partner? Isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: If they or their animals were hired out or leased to others, then they may perform their work? In that case, why not allow the partner to work with the animal of Mar, son of Rav Aḥa?
The Gemara asks: And would Reish Lakish speak with Rabba bar bar Ḥana in public? Just as Rabbi Elazar, who was the master of Eretz Yisrael in wisdom and character, and nevertheless, Reish Lakish would not speak with him in public, as Reish Lakish was sparing in his speech and extended friendship to only a select few prominent, righteous people, to the extent that a person to whom Reish Lakish was seen speaking in the marketplace, one would give him a loan and do business with him without witnesses; would he have spoken with Rabba bar bar Ḥana?
The Gemara relates that Ulla happened to come to Pumbedita, where they brought blood before him for an examination, but he would not see it, as he said: If Rabbi Elazar, who was the master of Eretz Yisrael in wisdom, when he would happen to come to the locale of Rabbi Yehuda, he would not see blood, shall I see blood here?
The Gemara asks: And why would they call Rabbi Elazar the master of Eretz Yisrael in wisdom? The Gemara explains that there was an incident involving a certain woman who brought blood before Rabbi Elazar for examination, and Rabbi Ami was sitting before him. Rabbi Ami observed that Rabbi Elazar smelled the blood and said to the woman: This is blood of desire, i.e., your desire for your husband caused you to emit this blood, and it is not the blood of menstruation. After the woman left Rabbi Elazar’s presence, Rabbi Ami caught up with her and inquired into the circumstances of her case. She said to him: My husband was absent on a journey, and I desired him. Rabbi Ami read the following verse about Rabbi Elazar: “The counsel of the Lord is with those who fear Him; and His covenant, to make them know it” (Psalms 25:14), i.e., God reveals secret matters to those who fear Him.
Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: One may soak eye salves from Shabbat eve and place them on his eyes on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned that he is violating the prohibition against healing on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Bar Liva’ei was standing before Mar Ukva on Shabbat. He saw Mar Ukva, who was opening and closing his eyes while applying a salve to them. Bar Liva’ei said to him: Master Shmuel certainly did not permit doing all of this. Rabbi Yannai sent a message to Mar Ukva: Can the master send us some of Master Shmuel’s eye salves? Mar Ukva sent him in response: I will send it to you so that you do not say I am miserly, but be aware that this is what Shmuel said: For healing the eyes, better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet with hot water in the evening than all the eye salves in the world. Follow these instructions and you will need nor other cures. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Better a drop of cold water in the morning and washing the hands and feet in the evening than all the eye salves in the world.
Following Shmuel’s death, Rav Anan came and threw the side post down, thus indicating to Ivut bar Ihi that it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, as a side post is effective only for an alleyway that has at least two courtyards containing at least two houses each. Ivut bar Ihi said with resentment: The alleyway in which I have been living and walking based on a ruling in the name of Master Shmuel, shall Rav Anan bar Rav come now and throw its side post away from me? The Gemara comments: Learn from the fact that this side post remained intact throughout Shmuel’s lifetime that he did not accept Rabbi Elazar’s objection.
Some say that Rav Mattana said: There was an incident that happened to me involving this uncertainty with regard to ritual fringes, and I came before Master Shmuel and he said to me: They are unfit forever.
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).
An alternative understanding was taught in a baraita: “I will not reject them”; this was in the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to pray on their behalf. “Nor will I abhor them”; this was in the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. “To destroy them utterly”; this was in the days of Haman, when I appointed for them the righteous leaders Mordecai and Esther. “To break My covenant with them”; this was in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages of other generations. “For I am the Lord their God”; this will be in the future, when no nation or people of a foreign tongue will be able to subjugate them further.
The Gemara objects: But perhaps l should reverse the statement and claim that fish without fins and scales in pits, ditches, and caves are prohibited, and those in trenches and water channels are permitted. The Gemara responds: One must say as Mattitya taught, as Mattitya bar Yehuda taught: What did you see that caused you to include pits, ditches, and caves, to permit them, and to exclude trenches and water channels, to prohibit them? I include pits, ditches, and caves, which contain still water like vessels, and I exclude trenches and water channels, which are not still like vessels, as water flows through them.
GEMARA:We learned in a mishna there (Yoma 28a) with regard to the Yom Kippur service in the Temple: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and stand on a high point in the Temple and see if it is day and the time for slaughtering the daily offering has arrived, as one may not slaughter offerings at night. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Mattitya ben Shmuel maintained that one should wait until greater light is observed. Therefore, when he was the appointed priest, he would say: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated, even to Hebron? And the observer would say: Yes.
The Gemara responds: Mattitya ben Yehuda teaches that the mishna is referring specifically to a case where there was another offering that was slaughtered at the same time. In such a case, there is no concern that people will reach this mistaken conclusion, as one who sees that the libations are sacrificed immediately with the other offering will simply assume that they were separated for the sake of that offering from the outset.
Abaye said to Rav Pappa: The previous generations were wholly dedicated to the sanctification of God’s name, while we are not as dedicated to the sanctification of God’s name. Typical of the earlier generations’ commitment, the Gemara relates: Like this incident involving Rav Adda bar Ahava who saw a non-Jewish woman who was wearing a garment made of a forbidden mixture of wool and linen [karbalta] in the marketplace. Since he thought that she was Jewish, he stood and ripped it from her. It was then divulged that she was a non-Jew and he was taken to court due to the shame that he caused her, and they assessed the payment for the shame that he caused her at four hundred zuz. Ultimately, Rav Adda said to her: What is your name? She replied: Matun. In a play on words, he said to her: Matun, her name, plus matun, the Aramaic word for two hundred, is worth four hundred zuz.
MISHNA:The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and observe if it is day and the time for slaughter has arrived. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest phrased his question differently: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated even to Hebron? And the observer says: Yes. And why did they need to ascertain whether or not it is day, which is typically evident to all? It was necessary, as once, the light of the moon rose, and they imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight, and they slaughtered the daily offering before its appropriate time. The animal was later taken out to the place designated for burning and burned because it was slaughtered too early. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they would carefully assess the situation until they were certain that it was day.
GEMARA:It was taught in a baraita that the Sages disputed the precise expression that was employed in the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael says that the formula is: The light flashed; Rabbi Akiva says: The light has risen, which is brighter than a mere flash. Naḥuma ben Apakshiyon says: There is even light in Hebron. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest in charge of the lotteries says: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that this is what the appointed priest said: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron and the entire nation has gone out, each and every person to engage in his labor.
§ It was taught in the mishna that Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest asks: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated even to Hebron? And he says: Yes. The Gemara asks: Who said yes? If we say it is that person who is standing on the roof, does he dream and also interpret his dream? Is it reasonable that the one asking the question answers it? Rather, say that it was that person who is standing on the ground who said yes. From where does he know that the sky is illuminated such that he is able to answer yes?
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. Further along the way, Rabban Gamliel encountered a certain gentile and said to him: Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai.
Elai joined the gentile and said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From the nearby towns of guardsmen. He asked: And what is your name? The gentile replied: My name is Mavgai. He then inquired: Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before, seeing as he knows your name? He said to him: No.
There, in Eretz Yisrael, they say a different adage with the same application: Shechem married a woman and Mavgai circumcised himself. This is based on the episode of the abduction of Dinah in the city of Shechem (see Genesis, chapter 34), where Shechem compelled all the male residents of the city to undergo circumcision so that he could marry Dinah. Shechem married Dinah, while the rest of the males suffered the pain of circumcision and received no benefit.
§ Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering of Nahshon, i.e., a sin offering similar to those brought by the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle (see Numbers, chapter 7), not to atone for a sin but as a gift, is fit and satisfies its owner’s obligation; as the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), indicating that there is one law for all the sin offerings.
Rather, if Mavog’s statement was stated, it was stated like this: Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered on the condition that Nahshon, the prince of Judah, be atoned for by it is fit; this is not considered a change of owner, as there is no atonement for the dead.
The Gemara answers: Rather, if Mavog’s statement was stated, it was stated like this: Rav says in the name of Mavog: A sin offering that one slaughtered for one who is obligated to bring a sin offering similar to that of Nahshon is fit; Nahshon’s sin offering is equivalent to a burnt offering.
The Gemara cites a statement from a baraita, along the lines of Rava’s advice to refrain from cutting meat on one’s hands: Rabbi Akiva said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Medes, and we should learn from their practices. When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table and not on their hands; when they kiss, either as a show of affection or honor, they kiss only the back of the hand and do not give the person being kissed an unpleasant feeling; and when they hold counsel, they only hold counsel in the field so others will not hear their secrets.
The Gemara responds: Rav Yehuda means that there is a concern only with regard to those who came from the permanent dwelling places of the ten tribes. As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that the verse states about those exiled from Samaria: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II Kings 18:11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana proceeded to identify these places. Halah; this is the place called Ḥalzon. And Habor;
this is Ḥadyab. The river of Gozan; this is Ginzak. And the cities of the Medes; this is Ḥamadan and its surroundings. And some say: This is Nihar and its surroundings. The Gemara asks: Which are its surroundings? Shmuel said: Kerakh, Mushkhei, Ḥidkei, and Domakya are the surroundings of Ḥamadan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them are for disqualification. In other words, if someone from one of these places wishes to convert, there is concern that he might be a descendant of a Jew and therefore a mamzer. Consequently, they all are disqualified.
Regarding this, Rav Shemen, Shimon, bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Now, since the eighteen blessings of the Amida prayer and the other prayer formulas for prayer were instituted for Israel by the members of the Great Assembly just like all the other blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot; let us see where in the Amida prayer the members of the Great Assembly instituted to recite havdala.
It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The members of the Great Assembly established for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and havdalot. Initially, they established that havdala is to be recited in theAmidaprayer. Subsequently, when the people became wealthy, they established that havdala is to be recited over the cup of wine. When the people again became impoverished, they established that it was to be recited in theAmidaprayer. And they said: One who recites havdala in theAmidaprayer must recite havdala over the cup of wine as well.
Rabbi Ḥanina waited for him until he completed his prayer. When he finished, Rabbi Ḥanina asked him: Have you concluded all of the praises of your Master? Why do I need all of this superfluous praise? Even these three praises that we recite: The great, mighty and awesome, had Moses our teacher not said them in the Torah and had the members of the Great Assembly not come and incorporated them into theAmida prayer, we would not be permitted to recite them. And you went on and recited all of these. It is comparable to a king who possessed many thousands of golden dinars, yet they were praising him for silver ones. Isn’t that deprecatory? All of the praises we could possibly lavish upon the Lord are nothing but a few silver dinars relative to many thousands of gold dinars. Reciting a litany of praise does not enhance God’s honor.
He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde’a to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: Even in that case, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, however, that person is called one of the men of Vardina. The men of Vardina were renowned misers, meaning that he is considered to be like them.
Furthermore, Rabbi Yosei said: I engaged in relations five times, and I planted five cedars in Eretz Yisrael. And who are these cedars? The sons of Rabbi Yosei, who were great Sages of Israel: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Ḥalafta, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Avtilas, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: Isn’t there Vardimas, who was also Rabbi Yosei’s son? The Gemara answers: Vardimas is the same as Menaḥem. And why did they call him Vardimas? Because his face was as beautiful as a rose [vered]. The Gemara asks: Is that to say based on this statement that Rabbi Yosei did not fulfill the mitzva of his wife’s conjugal rights, but only had relations with her five times? Rather, say it this way: I engaged in relations five times and I did so again, and the Sages said that one who seeks to father male offspring should engage in relations and do so again.
Apropos eulogies for righteous men, the Gemara presents the names: Ḥanin, Yoḥanan, Zeira, Abba, Ya’akov, Yosei, Shmuel, Ḥiyya, and Menaḥem; this is a mnemonic device for the stories that follow.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
Apropos the Messiah, the Gemara asks: What is his name? The school of Rabbi Sheila says: Shiloh is his name, as it is stated: “Until when Shiloh shall come” (Genesis 49:10). The school of Rabbi Yannai says: Yinnon is his name, as it is stated: “May his name endure forever; may his name continue [yinnon] as long as the sun; and may men bless themselves by him” (Psalms 72:17). The school of Rabbi Ḥanina says: Ḥanina is his name, as it is stated: “For I will show you no favor [Ḥanina]” (Jeremiah 16:13). And some say that Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: “Because the comforter [menaḥem] that should relieve my soul is far from me” (Lamentations 1:16). And the Rabbis say: The leper of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is his name, as it is stated: “Indeed our illnesses he did bear and our pains he endured; yet we did esteem him injured, stricken by God, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4).
The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Menaḥem Yodafa: Rabbi Elazar says that halakhain accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who interprets a verse dealing with the offerings of the festival of Sukkot: “Beside the daily burnt offering, its meal offering, and its libations” (Numbers 29:31), as follows: The plural form indicates that the verse is speaking of two types of libations: One is the water libation, unique to the festival of Sukkot, and the other one is the wine libation, which always accompanies the daily offering.
And Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If Rabbi Elazar derives the obligation for the water libation through the derivation taught by Rabbi Akiva, and that is why he rules that one who pours it as a libation outside the courtyard is liable, then he should equate the libations of wine and water, as follows: Just as with regard to wine the measure for the mitzva is three log, so too here, in the case of water, the measure for the mitzva should be three log. One may conclude by inference from this statement that Reish Lakish himself holds there is no measure for the water used in the libation. The Gemara answers: Actually, Reish Lakish maintains that there is a measure for the water, but he stated his question according to the explanation of Rabbi Menaḥem Yodafa, cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan.
Having explained the latter part of the verse in Isaiah, the Gemara turns to the beginning of that same verse. “Then shall the lambs feed as in their pasture [kedavram].” Menashya bar Yirmeya said that Rav said: As was said about them [kamedubar bam], i.e., as the prophet promised. To what prophecy does the verse refer with the expression “as was said about them”? Abaye said: It is referring to the continuation of the verse: “And the ruins of the fat ones shall wanderers eat.” Rava said to him that this cannot be: Granted, were it written only “the ruins of the fat ones,” it would be possible to explain as you said. Now that it is written “and the ruins,” with the addition of the word “and,” this indicates that it states something else, and the verse contains two separate prophecies.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is Menashya ben Menaḥem a tanna that you say the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that Rav Naḥman meant that the halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that because he held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Does Menashya ben Menaḥem constitute the majority of the world? Since most people do not squeeze pomegranates, the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem should be irrelevant relative to the typical practice of others.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Tarfon ruled in Lod: Exploitation is a measure of eight silverma’afrom the twenty-four silverma’aof a sela, one-third of the transaction. And the merchants of Lod rejoiced, as this ruling allowed them a greater profit margin and rendered the nullification of a transaction less likely. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Throughout the entire day it is permitted to renege on the transaction and not merely for the period of time it takes to show the purchase item to a merchant or a relative. The merchants of Lod said to him: Let Rabbi Tarfon leave us as we were, with the previous ruling, and they reverted to following the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna with regard to both rulings.
The Gemara answers: With regard to the merchants of Lod, it is rare for them to err, and therefore they preferred limiting the period during which the buyer could renege over extending the period during which they themselves could renege.
The Gemara answers based on a baraita. Come and hear: Those who sell produce, clothing, and utensils may sell them in private, for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The merchants of Tiberias were stringent with themselves not to sell at all, even in private. Hunters of animals, fowlers, and fishermen may hunt their quarry discreetly for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The hunters of Akko were stringent with themselves not to hunt at all. Groats makers who crack grain into groats called Ḥilka, targis, and tisanei, crack the grain in private for the sake of the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: The groats makers of Tzippori were stringent with themselves not to crack grain at all. According to Rabbi Yosei, the stringencies involve refraining from work entirely.
Rav Naḥman says: This one, i.e., any person, who knows how to respond to the heretics as effectively as Rav Idit should respond to them, but if he does not know, he should not respond to them. The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rav Idit: It is written in the verse concerning God: “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” (Exodus 24:1). The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come up to Me. Rav Idit said to him: This term, “the Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written: “Behold I send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21).
The Gemara asks: And initially, before the destruction of the Temple, who would teach the schoolchildren? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the angel Metatron would teach them, and if you wish, say instead that He would do both this, sport with the leviathan, and that, teach the schoolchildren; whereas after the destruction of the Temple in the fourth period of the day He only teaches the schoolchildren.
Abaye said: If he performs these actions in this order he will die. But if he performs them out of order he will become weak. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t a woman named Me’oret make her slave perform three of these actions and he died as a result? The Gemara answers: That slave was weak, which is why he died. But an ordinary individual would die only upon performing all of these acts in the previously mentioned order.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was pursued by the ministering angel of poverty, but the angel was unable to impoverish him, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to crumbs. One day that man broke his bread over grass, and some crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel said: Now he will certainly fall into my hands, as he cannot collect all the crumbs. After the man ate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass, and threw it into the river. He subsequently heard the ministering angel of poverty say: Woe is me, as that man has removed me from my house, i.e., my position of comfort.
Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi both spoke on this topic: One of them said: May a blessing come to me for I never gazed at a wicked gentile. And the other one said: May a blessing come to me for I never formed a partnership with a wicked gentile, so as not to have any association with a wicked person.
It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer.
The Gemara relates that the Sage Minyamin Saksana was coming and walking to the place of Shmuel. He thought that he would perform an action in accordance with the opinion of Rav, in that he would permit a grown woman to attribute blood to her torn hymen for the entire first night, even though she had already seen menstrual blood before she was married. Minyamin mistakenly said to himself: Rav does not distinguish between a woman who has seen menstrual blood and a woman who has not seen menstrual blood.
And if you would say that those ancient Egyptians, have gone, and these later Egyptians are different ones, but isn’t it taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (Kiddushin 4:3): Rabbi Yehuda said: Minyamin, an Egyptian convert, was a friend of mine from among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and Minyamin the Egyptian convert said: After I converted I was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and so I married another first-generation Egyptian convert. I will marry off my son, who is a second-generation Egyptian convert, to another second-generation Egyptian convert, in order that my son’s son will be permitted to enter into the congregation. The Torah prohibits Egyptian converts before the third generation to enter into the congregation (see Deuteronomy 23:8–9). By Minyamin’s observance of this prohibition even during the time of Rabbi Akiva, it indicates that Egypt during the tannaitic period was still viewed as biblical Egypt.
That is as demonstrated in this incident involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: When he wished to immerse him, he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, to perform the immersion on his behalf, and he said to them: Be aware that I will claim compensation for him from you if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. They placed a bridle [arvisa] upon his neck, and at the moment of immersion they loosened it and then immediately tightened it again while he was still immersed.
The Gemara relates with regard to Minyamin, the servant of Rav Ashi, that his shirt became wet [itamisha], and he spread it over the sukka to dry it. Rav Ashi said to him: Take it down so that people will not say that they are roofing the sukkawith an item susceptible to ritual impurity. The servant said to him: But don’t they see that it is wet and understand that I placed it there to dry? Rav Ashi replied: Take it down once it is dry is what I am saying to you, as then people are apt to think that it is part of the roofing.
Rav Naḥman said to him: I used to say that a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition, meaning that any obligation one accepts to serve as a penalty over and above the value of what he actually owes is nevertheless binding. But Minyumi said that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, and the transaction under discussion is an asmakhta. Now that he convinced me that his opinion is correct, I have retracted my previous opinion.
The Gemara asks: But if so, the mishna is difficult according to Minyumi. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that an asmakhta effects acquisition, but his is a minority opinion.
Rabbi Abbahu suffered from pain in his ear. Rabbi Yoḥanan instructed him, and some say that other Sages from the study hall instructed him, how to heal it. The Gemara asks: What did they instruct him? They told him to act in a fashion similar to that which Abaye said: My mother told me that the kidney was created only for the ear, i.e., it can be extremely beneficial to the ear. And Rava said: Minyumi the physician said to me: All liquids are harmful to the ear except for the fluid of the kidneys. Therefore, Rabbi Abbahu should bring the kidney of a bald goat [barḥa] and tear it vertically and horizontally and then place it upon dimming coals. And as for those fluids that issue from it, he should apply them to his ear while they are neither cold nor hot, but tepid.
MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.
The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to the one who said that Bilga was penalized because members of his watch tarried in arriving at the Temple; that is why the entire watch is penalized. However, according to the one who said it is due to Miriam, daughter of Bilga, who apostatized, do we penalize the entire watch of Bilga because of his daughter? Abaye said: Yes, as people say, the speech of a child in the marketplace is learned either from that of his father or from that of his mother. Miriam would never have said such things had she not heard talk of that kind in her parents’ home.
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
§ The Gemara stated earlier that Aḥer chopped down the saplings, becoming a heretic. With regard to him, the verse states: “Do not let your mouth bring your flesh into guilt” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). The Gemara poses a question: What was it that led him to heresy? He saw the angel Mitatron, who was granted permission to sit and write the merits of Israel. He said: There is a tradition that in the world above there is no sitting; no competition; no turning one’s back before Him, i.e., all face the Divine Presence; and no lethargy. Seeing that someone other than God was seated above, he said: Perhaps, the Gemara here interjects, Heaven forbid, there are two authorities, and there is another source of power in control of the world in addition to God. Such thoughts led Aḥer to heresy.
The Gemara relates: They removed Mitatron from his place in heaven and smote him with sixty rods [pulsei] of fire, so that others would not make the mistake that Aḥer made. They said to the angel: What is the reason that when you saw Elisha ben Avuya you did not stand before him? Despite this conduct, since Mitatron was personally involved, he was granted permission to erase the merits of Aḥer and cause him to stumble in any manner. A Divine Voice went forth saying: “Return, rebellious children” (Jeremiah 3:22), apart from Aḥer.
§ The mishna teaches: And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: If there is a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, and her husband is divorcing her, the husband must take a vow prohibiting himself from deriving any benefit from her so that he can never remarry her. The Gemara relates an incident pertaining to this ruling: Someone named Moshe bar Atzari was a guarantor for the marriage contract of his daughter-in-law, guaranteeing the money promised by his son in the event of death or divorce. His son, named Rav Huna, was a young Torah scholar, and was in financial straits. Abaye said: Is there no one who will go advise Rav Huna that he should divorce his wife, and she will go and collect her marriage contract from Rav Huna’s father, and then Rav Huna should remarry her?
§ The mishna teaches: On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that even in the case of a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, he vows that benefit from her is forbidden to him, lest he and his wife engage in collusion. The Gemara relates that Moshe bar Atzrei was the guarantor for the marriage contract of his daughter-in-law, and Rav Huna, his son, was a Torah scholar and was hard-pressed for money. Abaye said: Is there no one who will advise Rav Huna that he should divorce his wife, and she should claim her marriage contract from his father, the guarantor of the marriage contract, and that he should then return and remarry her, and in this manner they will obtain money?
Similarly, Rava said: If I am bitten by a louse, I can no longer learn in my usual manner. The Gemara relates that the mother of Mar, son of Ravina, would prepare seven garments for him for the seven days of the week, so that he would not be bitten by the lice found in old clothes (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
The Gemara relates that the mother of Rami bar Ḥama wrote a deed in the morning transferring ownership of her property to Rami bar Ḥama, and in the evening she wrote another deed transferring her property to another of her sons, Mar Ukva bar Ḥama.
The mother of Rami bar Ḥama wrote a deed in the evening granting her property to Rami bar Ḥama. In the morning of the following day, she wrote a deed granting her property to his brother, Rav Ukva bar Ḥama. Rami bar Ḥama came before Rav Sheshet, who established him as the owner of the property, as the deed transferring the property to him preceded the gift to his brother. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama came before Rav Naḥman, who established him as the owner of the property.
The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle [meloga] of promissory notes. When she was dying, she said: Let these promissory notes be for Amram, my son. His brothers came before Rav Naḥman. They said to Rav Naḥman: But Rav Amram did not pull the bundle of documents, and since an act of acquisition was not performed he did not acquire them. Rav Naḥman said to them: An act of acquisition was not required, because the statement of a person on his deathbed is considered as written and as though the documents were delivered to the recipient.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said with regard to this incident: The mother of Rav Huna bar Seḥora merited to give birth to such a son, who explained the halakha before Rava at the time of the Festival discourse in accordance with Rava’s own halakha.
The mother of Rav Zutra bar Toviyya wrote a deed granting her property to Rav Zutra bar Toviyya, explaining that she was doing so because she wanted to get married to Rav Zevid, and she did not want him to acquire her property. She married Rav Zevid, and he divorced her. She came before Rav Beivai bar Abaye to claim her property from her son. Rav Beivai said: She transferred her property because she wanted to get married, and she married. Since her intentions were fulfilled, even though she subsequently was divorced, the gift is a valid gift.
Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and she said: My brooch [keveinati] shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement even though the gift included only a part of her property and an act of acquisition was not performed. Rava replied: That incident is different, as the case there is referring to one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed.
§ Rav Ashi said: Rav Kahana and I signed a deed of sale for the mother of Ze’eira the orphan, who, as the child’s steward, sold land without first making a public announcement in order to pay the head tax [karga]. It was permitted for her to act in this manner due to what the Sages of Neharde’a said: When an orphan’s property is sold, a public announcement of the sale is first made in order to ensure that the seller will receive the highest price. But when the property is sold to raise money for the payment of the head tax, or to provide for sustenance for orphans, or to pay for burial of the deceased, the money is needed immediately, so the property may be sold even without a public announcement.
§ The Gemara relates that the mother-in-law of Rav Ḥiyya Arikha, so named because of his height, as the word arikha literally means long, was also the wife of his brother, and she was a widow who resided in the house of her father, and Rav Ḥiyya sustained her for twenty-five years in the house of her father, from his brother’s estate.
And it was Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both said: He is liable to bring a sin-offering specifically if he knew of the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot. However, a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. They have the legal status of one who performed the prohibited labor due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: They stated a significant principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat, i.e., one who does not know that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah, and performs many prohibited labors on multiple Shabbatot is liable to bring only one sin-offering. How so? With regard to a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles and does not know the essence of Shabbat; and if he performed many prohibited labors on multiple Shabbatot, he is only liable to bring one sin-offering for all his unwitting transgressions. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for all the blood he unwittingly ate before he learned of the prohibition; and one sin-offering for all the forbidden fat that he ate; and one for all the idolatry that he worshipped. And Munbaz, one of the Sages, deems him exempt from bringing any sacrifice.
And Munbaz deliberated before Rabbi Akiva as follows: Since one who commits a transgression intentionally is called a sinner in the Torah and one who commits a transgression unwittingly is called a sinner, just as one who commits the transgression intentionally is liable for punishment only in a case where he had prior knowledge that it was prohibited, so too, one who commits the transgression unwittingly is liable to bring a sin-offering only in a case where he had prior knowledge. However, the action of one who had no prior knowledge at all is not considered unwitting; rather, it has the same legal status as an action performed due to circumstances beyond one’s control, and he is completely exempt. Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will elaborate upon your statement and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and thereby test the validity of your reasoning. If so, just as one who commits the transgression intentionally is liable for punishment only in a case where he had the awareness that he was sinning at the time that he performed the action, so too, with regard to one who commits the transgression unwittingly, say that he is only liable to bring a sin-offering in a case where he had awareness that he was sinning at the time that he performed the action. If that is the case, it is no longer an unwitting transgression.
Returning to our issue: In any case, as an example of one who forgot the essence of Shabbat, it was taught: How so? A child who was taken captive. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel it works out well, as they consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who unwittingly forgot the essence of Shabbat. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who committed the action due to circumstances beyond his control and is therefore exempt, it is difficult because he is liable to bring a sin-offering according to the opinion of the Rabbis in the baraita. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could have said to you: Isn’t there the opinion of Munbaz who deemed him exempt in that case? We stated our opinion in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz.
Abaye would extend a hand to elders so that they could lean on him. Rava would send his agent to help them. Rav Naḥman would send officers [goza’ei], his servants, to assist elders. He said: If not for the Torah, how many people named Naḥman bar Abba would there be in the marketplace? In other words, I am not permitted to treat my Torah study lightly by assisting them myself, as I can perform this mitzva through others.
The mother came before Rav Naḥman for judgment. Rav Naḥman tore the document, accepting her claim that she did not intend to transfer ownership of her property. Rav Anan went before Mar Ukva, the Exilarch, and said to him: Let the Master observe Naḥman the farmer, how he tears people’s documents. Rav Anan was upset that Rav Naḥman destroyed a legitimate document. Mar Ukva said to him: Tell me, please, what was the actual incident?
The Gemara raises a contradiction between the baraita cited above and another baraita: There were three prominent judges who issued decrees in Jerusalem: Admon, Ḥanan, and Naḥum. In the previous baraita, Naḥum was not listed. Rav Pappa said: Who is the tanna who taught that the third judge was Naḥum? It is Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: Naḥum HaMadi was also among those who would issue decrees in Jerusalem, but the Sages did not agree with his opinion.
A ruling similar to the previous halakhais taught in a baraita: Naḥum of Galia says: If a drainage pipe is blocked by weeds [kashkashin] and grass, preventing water from running through the pipe, one may crush them with his foot in private on Shabbat without concern that he is performing the labor of preparing a vessel. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this leniency? This is an example of repairing a vessel in an unusual manner, since it is uncommon to fix an item without using a tool or one’s hands. Performing labor in an unusual manner is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic decree, but in a situation involving financial loss, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rabbi Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum of Galia.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine kav of drawn water poured over him, that is sufficient to render him ritually pure and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: Naḥum of Gam Zo whispered this halakha to Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to his student ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students publicly in the marketplace. Two amora’im in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. One taught: Ben Azzai taught it to his students in the market. And the other taught: Ben Azzai also whispered it to his students.
Apropos Abraham’s miraculous weapons, the Gemara relates: Naḥum of Gam Zo was accustomed that in response to any circumstance that arose in his regard, he would say: This too [gam zo] is for the best. One day the Jewish people sought to send a gift [doron] to the emperor. They said: With
§ The Gemara relates another story about a rundown building. They said about Naḥum of Gam Zu that he was blind in both eyes, both his arms were amputated, both his legs were amputated, and his entire body was covered in boils. And he was lying in a dilapidated house, and legs of his bed were placed in buckets of water so that ants should not climb onto him, as he was unable to keep them off in any other manner. Once his students sought to remove his bed from the house and afterward remove his other vessels. He said to them: My sons, remove the vessels first, and afterward remove my bed, as I can guarantee you that as long as I am in the house, the house will not fall. Indeed they removed the vessels and afterward they removed his bed, and immediately the house collapsed.
The Gemara inquires: And why did they call him Naḥum of Gam Zu? The reason is that with regard to any matter that occurred to him, he would say: This too is for the good [gam zu letova]. Once, the Jews wished to send a gift [doron] to the house of the emperor. They said: Who should go and present this gift? Let Naḥum of Gam Zu go, as he is accustomed to miracles. They sent with him a chest [sifta] full of jewels and pearls, and he went and spent the night in a certain inn. During the night, these residents of the inn arose and took all of the precious jewels and pearls from the chest, and filled it with earth. The next day, when he saw what had happened, Naḥum of Gam Zu said: This too is for the good.
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Akiva a question when they were walking along the way. He said to him: You who served Naḥum of Gam Zu for twenty-two years, who would expound and learn that every appearance of the word et in the Torah is meant to teach something, what would he expound from the phrase: “The heaven and the earth” [et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz] (Genesis 1:1)? He said to him: These words should be expounded as follows: Had it stated: In the beginning God created hashamayim veha’aretz, i.e., the heaven and the earth, without the word et, I would have said: Shamayim is the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the same goes for aretz, and the verse would sound as if it meant that God, whose name is Shamayim and Aretz, created the world. Since it states “et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz,” it is clear that these are created objects and that shamayim means the actual heaven and aretz is the actual earth. It is for this reason that the word et is necessary.
With regard to the formula of Grace after Meals, the Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who did not say: A desirable, good, and spacious land in the blessing of the land, and who did not mention the royal house of David in the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem, did not fulfill his obligation. Naḥum the Elder says: One must mention the covenant of circumcision in the blessing of the land. Rabbi Yosei says: One must mention the Torah in the blessing of the land. Pelimu, one of the last tanna’im, says: He must make mention of the covenant of circumcision preceding mention of the Torah, as this, the Torah, was given to the Jewish people with three covenants,
This mishna cites a list of fuels and wicks that one may not use in kindling the Shabbat lights, either because their use might induce one to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat or because they are not in keeping with the deference due Shabbat. The mishna begins by listing the materials that one may not use as wicks. That is followed by a list of the substances that one may not use as fuel.
MISHNA:With what may one light the Shabbat lamp, and with what may one not light it? With regard to types of prohibited wicks, one may light neither with cedar bast [lekhesh], nor with uncombed flax [Ḥosen], nor with raw silk [kalakh], nor with willow bast [petilat ha’idan], nor with desert weed [petilat hamidbar], nor with green moss that is on the surface of the water. With regard to types of prohibited oils, one may light neither with pitch [zefet], nor with wax [sha’ava], nor with castor oil [shemen kik], nor with burnt oil [shemen sereifa], nor with fat from a sheep’s tail [alya], nor with tallow [Ḥelev]. Naḥum the Mede says: One may light with boiled tallow. And the Rabbis say: Both tallow that was boiled and tallow that was not boiled, one may not light with them.
But if he took a vow of naziriteship after his animal was stolen, he is not a nazirite, as it is retroactively established that his vow was taken in error from the outset, as he relied on an animal he did not possess. And this was the error that Naḥum the Mede erred when he failed to distinguish between an event that occurred before the vow was taken and an event that occurred afterward. The incident in question was as follows: When nazirites were ascending from the exile to sacrifice their offerings, and they found the Temple destroyed, Naḥum the Mede said to them: If you had known that the Temple would be destroyed, would you have taken a vow of naziriteship? They said to him: Certainly not, as there is no remedy for a naziriteship in this case. And Naḥum the Mede dissolved the vow for them.
MISHNA:One who sells a donkey has not sold its vessels, i.e., its equipment, with it. Naḥum the Mede says: He has sold its vessels. Rabbi Yehuda says: There are times when the vessels are sold, and there are times when they are not sold. How so? If the donkey was before him and its vessels were on it, and the buyer said to him: Sell me this donkey of yours, its vessels are sold. If the buyer said to him: Is the donkey yours; I wish to purchase it, its vessels are not sold.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, learn in a mishna (Pe’a 2:6): Naḥum the Scribe [lavlar] said: This is the tradition that I received from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from father, who received it from the pairs of Sages who served during the period of the Second Temple, who received it from the Prophets: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to one who sows the plants of dill and mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves a corner to the poor for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.
GEMARA:It was taught in a baraita that the Sages disputed the precise expression that was employed in the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael says that the formula is: The light flashed; Rabbi Akiva says: The light has risen, which is brighter than a mere flash. Naḥuma ben Apakshiyon says: There is even light in Hebron. Matya ben Shmuel says that the appointed priest in charge of the lotteries says: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that this is what the appointed priest said: The entire eastern sky is illuminated all the way to Hebron and the entire nation has gone out, each and every person to engage in his labor.
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).
Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isn’t it written: “And the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [naki]” (Psalms 10:8).
§ The Sages taught: Once all the Jewish people ascended for the pilgrimage Festival to Jerusalem and there was not enough water for them to drink. Nakdimon ben Guryon, one of the wealthy citizens of Jerusalem, went to a certain gentile officer [hegemon] and said to him: Lend me twelve wells of water for the pilgrims, and I will give back to you twelve wells of water. And if I do not give them to you, I will give you twelve talents of silver. And the officer set him a time limit for returning the water.
As the master left the bathhouse, Nakdimon ben Guryon left the Temple. When they met one another, Nakdimon said to him: Give me the money you owe me for the extra water you received. The official said to him: I know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, has shaken His world and caused rain to fall only for you. However, I still maintain a claim against you, by which I can legally take my coins from you, as you did not pay me on the agreed date, for the sun had already set, and therefore the rain fell onto my property.
The Sages taught: With regard to three people, the sun broke through and shone at an irregular time for their sake: Moses, Joshua, and Nakdimon ben Guryon. The Gemara asks: Granted, the case of Nakdimon ben Guryon is known by the aforementioned tradition. The case of Joshua too is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies” (Joshua 10:13). However, from where do we derive that the sun shined in a supernatural way for Moses?
Rava said: From where do I say my reasoning that we are not concerned about two people with identical names? As there were two promissory notes produced in Meḥoza, and these names of the creditors were written on them: Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai, and Rava bar Avuh collected dinars for them with these promissory notes, without concerning himself with the possibility that they might be referring to other people. And the names Ḥavai bar Nanai and Nanai bar Ḥavai are very common in Meḥoza, i.e., there are certainly other people with these names, and yet he was not worried about this matter. The Gemara asks: And Abaye, how does he answer this proof?
Rava said: The dead has acquired it, as deriving benefit from anything consecrated for the dead is prohibited. Nanai, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rav Kahana: But didn’t Rava say that Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda? Accordingly, the woman’s robe must be returned. He said to him: Doesn’t Rav Yehuda admit that the robe has not yet been collected? And since it has not yet been collected, it remains in his possession, and his inheritors can render its use as a burial shroud prohibited.
The Gemara presents another suggestion: Rather, Rav Ashi said: Natan bar Mar Zutra said to me that we say to them that false witnesses are belittled even by those who hire them, and all the more so by others; as it is written that Jezebel said when she ordered witnesses to be hired to testify against Naboth: “And set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: You cursed God and the king” (I Kings 21:10). Even Jezebel, who gave the orders to hire them, called them “base fellows.”
§ The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.
Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about two intestines that exit the abomasum of the animal as one, that this renders the animal a tereifa. But if this phenomenon occurs likewise in a bird, it is kosher, because it is common in birds. In what case is this statement said, i.e., that two intestines render an animal a tereifa? It is said in a case where they exit at two different points. But if they exit at one point, adjacent to each other, and they end, i.e., they merge into one intestine, within a fingerbreadth, the animal is kosher.
Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Neḥemya the Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita, i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka] and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating that his repentance was accepted.
As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Natan said: On one occasion, I went to the coastal cities, and one woman came before me who circumcised her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he died, and since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was red. I said to her: Wait until his blood is absorbed into him. She waited until his blood was absorbed into him and then circumcised him, and he lived. And they would call him Natan the Babylonian after my name.
Rabbi Natan further related: On another occasion I went to the state of Cappadocia, and a woman came before me who circumcised her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he died. Since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was pale. I looked at him and I could not see in him the blood of the covenant, i.e., he had a blood deficiency. I said to her: Wait until blood enters him. And she waited and then circumcised him, and he lived. And they would call his name Natan the Babylonian after my name.
The baraita continues: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later retracted his response, and said: My response was because of immaturity that I had in me, and I was insolent in the presence of Rabbi Natan the Babylonian by responding in a manner that is incorrect. It is incorrect for the following reason: But since we maintain that concerning an obligation detailed in a marriage document ensuring inheritance rights of a woman’s male children, the beneficiaries do not repossess liened property that has been sold, one can infer that they do not receive the money as a gift. As, if it enters your mind that we learned in the mishna that they will take the money as a gift, why don’t they repossess liened property? The gift was given to them before the property was sold to others. Rather, conclude from this claim that we learned in the mishna that they will inherit the money.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: As Nayyoli says that Rav Huna says: The majority of the spinal cord, which they said renders the animal a tereifa if cut, is the majority of the meninges. But this nerve tissue makes no difference.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was named Nefata whose husband instructed witnesses to write and sign a bill of divorce and to divorce her. The witnesses went and mistakenly wrote Tefata in the bill of divorce. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: The bill of divorce is invalid because the name is wrong. However, the witnesses cannot write another bill of divorce in the correct manner because the witnesses already performed their agency and are no longer agents of the husband.
There is a fundamental problem in the mishna that was clarified during the course of a particular incident: Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yoḥanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In Neharde’a. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yoḥanan until he agreed to teach him.
And from where do we derive that we may shackle his hands and feet, chain him, and apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [lishroshi], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment” (Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word “lishroshi,” translated here as banishment? Adda Mari said that Neḥemya bar Baruch said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Yehuda said: This is pressure. Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: What is pressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav that this term refers to the following series of actions: They ostracize him immediately, and then once again after thirty days, and if he still does not repent, they excommunicate him after sixty days.
The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word “et” as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word “et” to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God?
As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word “et” that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.
As it was taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God; you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he withdrew from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the etim that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word et in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God”: The word et comes to include Torah scholars, and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.
Rami bar Ḥama said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma. Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a in Babylonia to intercalate the year, I found there the Sage Neḥemya of Beit D’li, and he said to me: I heard that the Sages do not allow a woman to marry in Eretz Yisrael based on the testimony of one witness, apart from Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as the other Sages are reluctant to rely on his opinion. And I said [namti] to him: This is so. He said to me: Say to them in my name: Do you know that this country is riddled with troops? This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the Sages do allow a woman to marry based on one witness.
MISHNA:Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a, in Babylonia, to intercalate the year, I found the Sage Neḥemya of Beit D’li. He said to me: I heard that the Sages in Eretz Yisrael do not allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava. And I told him: That is so. He said to me: Tell the Sages in my name: You know that the country is confounded by army troops, and I cannot come myself. I declare that I received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the court may allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness.
The Gemara relates that Neḥemya, son of Rav Ḥanilai, was once so engrossed in his learning that he did not notice that he was going out beyond his Shabbat limit. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman: Your student Neḥemya is in distress, as he is outside the Shabbat limit and cannot enter. What can we do for him?
§ The Gemara investigates the permissibility of crossing water in order to fulfill a mitzva: It works out well that on Yom Kippur it is permitted because there are no shoes, and there is no problem going through water barefoot. However, on Shabbat, when there are shoes, what is the halakha? Is one permitted to cross water wearing shoes? Is there a concern that his shoe might come off and he may pick it up, thereby violating the prohibition of carrying out? Neḥemya, the son-in-law of the Nasi, said: I saw Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi come to a pool of water that they had to cross on Shabbat, and they crossed it while wearing their shoes without removing them first.
§ The Sages taught: If someone dug or opened a well and transferred it to the public for their use, he is exempt from damage caused by the well. If he dug or opened a well and did not transfer it to the public, he is liable. And this was the practice of Neḥunya the digger of pits, ditches, and caves, who would dig, open, and transfer them to the public so that there would be wells of water for public use. When the Sages heard about the matter, they said: This individual has fulfilled this halakha. The Gemara asks: Only this halakha and no more? Isn’t it well known that Neḥunya was a great man? Rather, say: He fulfilled even this halakha and did not forget to transfer the wells to the public.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: The word “this” in the verse is a restricting term, indicating that the woman does not drink and repeat. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in which Neḥunya the ditch digger testified before us in the name of his teachers that the woman drinks and repeats, and we accepted his testimony with regard to two men, but not with regard to one man. Even if she drinks the water of a sota while married to her first husband, she must drink again after violating a warning by her second husband. However, one husband cannot have his wife drink twice.
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.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who finds a sela coin in the marketplace and another person finds him and says: It is mine, and the distinguishing mark is that it is new, or that it is a coin minted by the emperor Nero, or that it is minted by king so-and-so, he has not said anything and the finder need not give him the sela. Moreover, even if his name is written on the selahe has not said anything, due to the fact that there is no distinguishing mark for a coin that is effective in its recovery, as the finder says: Perhaps he spent the coin and it fell from another person.
The mishna continues: But if the window was made by the hand of a person, its measure for which ritual impurity is transmitted is like the size of the drilled hole of the large drill of the chamber in the Temple, which is like the size of the Italian pundeyon and like the size of a sela of the emperor Nero. And its size is
Rav Naḥman says: It is specifically with regard to a sela of the emperor Nero that we learned in the mishna concerning a window that imparts impurity that it is like the size of a large drilled hole. But with regard to the unspecified sela coin mentioned by Beit Hillel as the measure, it is even smaller than an unspecified drilled hole. Therefore, Beit Shammai are stringent even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
The Roman authorities then sent Nero Caesar against the Jews. When he came to Jerusalem, he wished to test his fate. He shot an arrow to the east and the arrow came and fell in Jerusalem. He then shot another arrow to the west and it also fell in Jerusalem. He shot an arrow in all four directions of the heavens, and each time the arrow fell in Jerusalem.
Rav Yosef taught that there are three kinds of rope, each required by halakha for a different purpose: A rope of magag, a kind of bulrush reed; a rope of netzer, made from fibrous palm vines; and a rope of flax.
They are used for the following purposes: A rope of magag is utilized for the burning of the red heifer, as we learned in a mishna: They would bind the heifer with a rope of magag and place it on its woodpile, where it would be burned after it was slaughtered. A rope of netzer was required for a sota, a woman suspected of adultery, as we learned in a mishna: Before the sota is compelled to drink the bitter waters, her clothes are torn. And after that a priest brings a mitzri rope, i.e., a rope made of reeds [netzarim], and binds it above her breasts, so that her garments will not fall. A rope of flax is used for measuring.
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).
The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof, as Rabbi Yosei said: An incident took place involving Niftayim the convert, who married the wife of his maternal half brother, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said that there is no valid marriage for a convert. The Gemara asks: Is this possible? And if a convert betroths a woman who is not related to him, is his betrothal to her indeed ineffective? Rather, modify the baraita and say that with regard to a convert there is no prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife. The Gemara concludes: What, is the baraitanot referring to a case where the brother, her first husband, married her when he was already a convert, thereby proving that a convert is permitted to marry the wife of his deceased brother who was also a convert, even if they were maternal brothers?
The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with a case where he slaughtered the firstborn donkey in order to teach himself how to properly slaughter an animal, and not in order to eat it. In this case, Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree whether the prohibition against a Jew’s consuming it serves as intent that it be treated as food. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Nimos and Rabbi Eliezer.
And if you would say that if the meat of the crow is susceptible to the impurity of food because of its kosher indicators, why do Rabbi Eliezer and Nimos specifically disagree in the case where it was slaughtered in order to teach oneself how to slaughter properly? Even if the one who slaughtered it acted unawares, Rabbi Eliezer should hold that its flesh should be suceptible to impurity. The response would be that yes, this is indeed so according to Rabbi Eliezer, and they disagreed in this case only because of the opinion of Nimos, who holds that even where one slaughtered the crow intentionally, if he slaughtered it in order to teach himself how to slaughter properly the crow is not susceptible to impurity.
The gentile philosopher, Nimos HaGardi, asked Rabbi Meir: Does all wool that enters the cauldron to be dyed emerge colored? In other words, do all those who learn Torah emerge as decent and worthy? He said to him: Whoever was clean when he was with his mother, from the outset, will emerge decent and worthy, but all those who were not clean when they were with their mother will not emerge worthy. One who approaches Torah study having been flawed from the outset will not be properly influenced by it.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Nimos, the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi, once related to me that in the case of one who slaughters a crow in order to teach himself how to slaughter a bird properly, its blood renders other foods susceptible to impurity, as blood is one of the seven liquids that is capable of rendering foods susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood that comes from the slaughter of an animal always renders food susceptible to impurity.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.
With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shabbat in the upper story of the house of Nit’za in the city of Lod. And they brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibition. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there? The legal status of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit’za is different. They are vigilant. There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is prohibited.
In connection to the mishna’s statement about the importance of Torah study, the Gemara relates the following incident: And there already was an incident in which Rabbi Tarfon and the Elders were reclining in the loft of the house of Nit’za in Lod, when this question was asked of them: Is study greater or is action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: Action is greater. Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Study is greater. Everyone answered and said: Study is greater, but not as an independent value; rather, it is greater as study leads to action.
In the meantime, as they were talking, a messenger [feristaka] arrived from Rome, and said to him: Rise, for the emperor has died, and the noblemen of Rome plan to appoint you as their leader and make you the next emperor. At that time Vespasian was wearing only one shoe, and when he tried to put on the other one, it would not go on his foot. He then tried to remove the other shoe that he was already wearing, but it would not come off. He said: What is this?
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova said: I was at that time among the noblemen of Rome, and when Titus died they split open his head and found that the gnat had grown to the size of a sparrow weighing two sela. It was taught in another baraita: It was like a one-year-old pigeon weighing two litra.
The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome.
The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.
The Gemara asks: And why was his daughter condemned to sit in a brothel? As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Once, the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon was walking before the nobles of Rome, and they said to each other: How pleasant are the steps of this young woman. Upon hearing this, she immediately took care to keep walking in such a fashion that her steps would continue to be pleasing to them. And this is the same as that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The iniquity of my heel encircles me” (Psalms 49:6)? It means that the sins that a person tramples with one’s heel in this world, i.e., dismisses and pays no attention to them as they seem to lack importance, e.g., the way that one walks, come and encircle him on the Day of Judgment.
On the topic of the zimmun formula, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who recites in a zimmun: And by His goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar. However, one who recites: And by His goodness they live, he is a fool, as he excluded himself from the collective. The Sages of Neharbela taught the opposite. In their opinion, they live is preferable because it is a more inclusive formula, whereas, we live is more limited and personal. Nonetheless, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Neharbela.
The Sages of Neharbela said: Even if one brought in earth to cover the blood of a bird with it, it is permitted to cover excrement with it, as it cannot be said that he did not intend this usage.
If it says: The Sages of Neharbela taught, this is referring to Rami bar Berabi, and the statement: They say in the school of Rav, is a reference to Rav Huna. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Huna sometimes say with regard to a given halakha: They say in the school of Rav? From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: Rather, the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to Rav Hamnuna. The formula: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yirmeya; the expression: They sent a message from there, meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; and the statement: They laughed at it in the West, means that Rabbi Elazar did not accept a particular opinion.
Rabbi Yosei says: If one does not know how to square the city in alignment with the four directions of the world based upon the constellations, he should square it based upon the seasons, although this is less precise. How so? Where the sun rises and sets on the longest day of the year, the summer solstice, this route of the sun is the face of the north. The sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest, and thus travels from east to west across the north side of the world. Conversely, where the sun rises and sets on the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice, this route of the sun is the face of the south. Whereas at the vernal equinox and the autumnal equinox, when day and night are equal in length, the sun rises in the middle of the east and sets in the middle of the west.
The Gemara qualifies the mishna’s ruling. However, if one comes to recite verses of Kingship, remembrance, and shofar with a theme of the punishment of gentiles, one may recite them. The Gemara offers examples of these verses: With regard to the verses of Kingship, for example: “The Lord reigns, let the peoples tremble” (Psalms 99:1), and, for example: “The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nations are perished out of His land” (Psalms 10:16). With regard to remembrance, for example: “Remember, O Lord, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said: Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation” (Psalms 137:7). With regard to the verses of shofar, for example: “And the Lord God will sound theshofar, and will go with whirlwinds of the south” (Zechariah 9:14), and it is written: “The Lord of hosts will defend them” (Zechariah 9:15), i.e., God will defend the Jewish people against their enemies.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue without intending to make it into a shortcut, when he leaves he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself, by leaving through the exit on the other side of the building. And Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: With regard to one who enters a synagogue to pray, he is permitted to make it into a shortcut for himself by leaving through a different exit, and it is fitting to do so, as it is stated: “And when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the appointed seasons, he that enters by way of the north gate to bow down shall go forth by the way of the south gate” (Ezekiel 46:9). This indicates that it is a show of respect not to leave through the same entrance through which one came in; it is better to leave through the other side.
and you derived pleasure from it, and because of this you were held responsible by Heaven. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, you are right, as you have reminded me that once I was walking in the upper marketplace of Tzippori, and I found a man who was one of the students of Jesus the Nazarene, and his name was Ya’akov of Kefar Sekhanya. He said to me: It is written in your Torah: “You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). What is the halakha: Is it permitted to make from the payment to a prostitute for services rendered a bathroom for a High Priest in the Temple? And I said nothing to him in response.
The message continued: And the offspring of Nahshon, meaning the Sages of the court of the Nasi, who was descended from the prince of Judah, Nahshon ben Amminadab (see Numbers 7:12), sought to establish a pillar, i.e., they sought to add a month to the year. But that Edomite, the local Roman governor, did not allow them to intercalate the year. Nevertheless, the members of the assembly gathered, and they established a pillar, in the month in which Aaron the priest died, i.e., the Sages of Eretz Yisrael convened in the month of Av, which is before Rosh HaShana, and determined that the following year should be intercalated. Evidently, then, in exigent circumstances, intercalation may be done even before Rosh HaShana. The Gemara answers: The court may calculate the need for an extra month even before Rosh HaShana, but they may not reveal and publicize the decision until after Rosh HaShana.
Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Neḥemya the Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita, i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka] and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating that his repentance was accepted.
§ It was taught in the mishna: The people escort the High Priest to his house. And he would make a feast for his loved ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one High Priest who exited the Holy Temple and everyone followed him. When they saw Shemaya and Avtalyon, the heads of the Sanhedrin, walking along, in deference to them they left the High Priest by himself and walked after Shemaya and Avtalyon.
One of the Rabbis, whose name was Rabbi Ya’akov, said to them: It was explained to me directly by Rabbi Yoḥanan that he was referring to a case where he robbed another of sanded wood and fashioned it into vessels, which is a change in which the item can revert to its original state. Consequently, the robber does not acquire the item by Torah law, but rather due to the ordinance instituted for the penitent.
Rav Huna already explained the beginning of the verse, “The wicked walk round about.” The Gemara explains the end of the verse: “When vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” One of the Sages said to Rav Beivai bar Abaye, and some say Rav Beivai said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: What is the meaning of: “When vileness is exalted among the sons of men”?
One of the Sages said to Rava: What is the halakha with regard to terima? Rava was unfamiliar with the term terima and did not understand what he was saying to him. Ravina sat before Rava and said to the student who had posed the question to Rava: In posing the question, are you speaking of sesameterimaor are you speaking of safflowerterimaor are you speaking of grape-pitsterima?
The Gemara recounts: Ravin and Abaye were traveling along the road on donkeys. Ravin’s donkey preceded Abaye’s and Ravin did not say to Abaye: Let the Master go first. Abaye said to himself: Ever since this one of the Sages, Ravin, ascended from the West, Eretz Yisrael, he has become arrogant. When they reached the door of the synagogue, Ravin said to Abaye: Let the Master enter first. Abaye said to him: Until now was I not Master? Why do you only begin deferring to me now but did not do so while we were traveling? Ravin said to him: Rabbi Yoḥanan said the following: One only defers to those greater than he at a doorway that has a mezuza, as only there is it appropriate to allow him to go first.
to one of the sons of so-and-so, who had both adult and minor sons. The son to whom she was betrothed was not specified. Rava said: Even according to the one who says that we do not suppress a rumor, in this case we suppress the rumor. People will not slander her. Rather, they will say that the Sages investigated the betrothal and concluded that it was the betrothal of a minor.
Rav Ḥelbo fell ill. There was no one who came to visit him. Rav Kahana said to the Sages: Didn’t the incident involving one of the students of Rabbi Akiva who became sick transpire in that manner? In that case, the Sages did not enter to visit him, and Rabbi Akiva entered to visit him and instructed his students to care for him. And since they swept and sprinkled water on the dirt floor before the sick student, he recovered. The student said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, you revived me. Rabbi Akiva went out and taught: With regard to anyone who does not visit the ill, it is as though he is spilling blood, as it could be that the sick person has no one to care for him. If there are no visitors, no one will know his situation and therefore no one will come to his aid.
The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is the one who maintains that the measuring vessels for dry items were consecrated, follows [ve’azda] his line of reasoning stated elsewhere. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and one of the students of Rabbi Yishmael both said the same thing. And who is that student of Rabbi Yishmael? It is Rabbi Yoshiya.
The Gemara asks: Since the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan concerns the halakha of measuring vessels for dry items, let Rabbi Yoḥanan say also, as he did with regard to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Yoshiya: Rabbi Akiva and one of the students of Rabbi Yishmael both said the same thing, and who is that student? Rabbi Yonatan. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this due to the fact that their opinions are not the same with regard to measuring vessels used for liquid items: Rabbi Akiva maintains that these vessels are consecrated both on the inside and on the outside, whereas Rabbi Yonatan rules that they are consecrated only on the inside.
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that one who repents of the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse does not die? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They said about Rabbi Elazar ben Durdayya that he was so promiscuous that he did not leave one prostitute in the world with whom he did not engage in sexual intercourse. Once, he heard that there was one prostitute in one of the cities overseas who would take a purse full of dinars as her payment. He took a purse full of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her. When they were engaged in the matters to which they were accustomed, a euphemism for intercourse, she passed wind and said: Just as this passed wind will not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Durdayya will not be accepted in repentance, even if he were to try to repent.
§ The mishna continues: The basin to the west of the altar was for water, and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one Sadducee priest who poured the water on his feet, and in anger all the people pelted him with their etrogim. And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. They brought a fistful of salt and sealed the damaged section, not because it rendered the altar fit for the Temple service, but in deference to the altar, so that the altar would not be seen in its damaged state.
The Gemara continues: This curse was effective, as the thieves subsequently went and carried out thefts for twenty-two years, but they were unsuccessful. Once they saw that their efforts were for naught, they all went and claimed their curse, i.e., they asked forgiveness and requested that the curse be lifted. But there was one weaver among them who did not come to lift his curse, and a lion ate him. The Gemara notes that this explains the adage that people say: With regard to a weaver [girdana] who is not shy [taizan] but impudent, a year is deducted from his allotted years.
As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Natan said: On one occasion, I went to the coastal cities, and one woman came before me who circumcised her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he died, and since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was red. I said to her: Wait until his blood is absorbed into him. She waited until his blood was absorbed into him and then circumcised him, and he lived. And they would call him Natan the Babylonian after my name.
And some teach this ruling of Rav Giddel bar Menashya as referring to the following case: It is taught in a baraita: Within the first thirty days after birth, an infant that dies is taken out for burial in one’s bosom, that is to say, he is carried to his grave in one’s arms, not in a coffin. And he is buried by one woman and two men, there being no need for a quorum of ten men. But he should not be taken out by one man and two women, because it is prohibited for one man to seclude himself with two women.
And you must accordingly amend the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya so that it reads as follows: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever you find that the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions, and they established two women against one woman like two men against one man. However, in a case involving two women against one man who is a valid witness, this is like half against half, i.e., they are equal. With regard to Shmuel’s statement, if the wife herself remains silent, the testimony of the first woman that the husband is dead has been negated, as her account was contradicted by two women. But if the claim of the wife is joined to that of the first woman she need not leave her second husband.
Alternatively, the term “at night” indicates that with regard to anyone who cries at night, his voice is heard due to the ambient silence. Alternatively, the term “at night” indicates that in the case of anyone who cries at night, the stars and the constellations cry with him. Alternatively, the term “at night” indicates that in the case of anyone who cries at night, one who hears his voice is touched by his suffering and cries with him. There was an incident involving one woman, the neighbor of Rabban Gamliel, whose son died, and she would cry over his death at night. Rabban Gamliel heard her voice and cried with her until his eyelashes fell out. The next day his students noticed that he had been crying, and they removed the woman from his neighborhood so that Rabban Gamliel could sleep.
GEMARA:Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings in the temple of Onias in Egypt at the present time. The Gemara cites the basis for the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. He maintains that the temple of Onias is not a house of idol worship but rather a temple devoted to the service of God, and he maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Therefore, after the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of Jerusalem lapsed and the sacrifice of offerings elsewhere was no longer prohibited. For these reasons it was permitted to sacrifice offerings in the temple of Onias after the Temple was destroyed.
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to vessels that were used in the temple of Onias, what is the halakhawith regard to using them in the Temple?
And he raised this dilemma according to the opinion of the one who says that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. As we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 109a): Priests who served in the temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple that is in Jerusalem, and needless to say, those priests who served in a temple of something else, i.e., idol worship, may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem. This distinction indicates that the temple of Onias was not a temple of idol worship. It was used for the service of God, but it violated the prohibition against sacrificing offerings outside of the Temple in Jerusalem.
§ The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him:
§ The Gemara mentions other Romans who converted to Judaism. It relates: Onkelos bar Kelonimos converted to Judaism. The Roman emperor sent a troop [gunda] of Roman soldiers after him to seize Onkelos and bring him to the emperor. Onkelos drew them toward him with verses that he cited and learned with them, and they converted. The emperor then sent another troop of Roman soldiers after him, and said to them: Do not say anything to him, so that he cannot convince you with his arguments. The troops followed this instruction, and took Onkelos with them.
§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs, and a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind?
The Gemara asks: Was the translation of the Torah really composed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin say that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written with respect to the days of Ezra: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the scriptural text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says they stood as described in the verse: “And their faces were toward the House,” isn’t it written: “With their faces one toward the other” (Exodus 25:20). How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: They were angled sideways so that they turned both to each other and toward the Sanctuary, as it is taught in a baraita: Onkelos the Convert said that the cherubs were of the form of children, as the verse states: “And in the Holy of Holies he made two cherubim of the form of children; and they overlaid them with gold” (II Chronicles 3:10), and their faces were angled sideways toward the Ark of the Covenant, like a student taking leave of his teacher.
Rabbi Zeira’s father, and some say it was Oshaya bar Zavda, strongly objects to this explanation. If you wish to compare these two cases, you can argue as follows: Just as it is prohibited for a nazirite to eat grape pits, as he may not partake of any of the products of a grapevine, so too, it should be prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction to eat grape pits. Certainly a priest is not barred from raising his hands after eating a few grape pits. Rather, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that the verse states: “To minister to Him and to bless in His name” (Deuteronomy 10:8). Just as it is permitted for a priest who ministers to God in the Temple to partake of grape pits, so too, it is permitted for a priest who recites the benediction to partake of grape pits.
This was also stated by other amora’im. Reish Lakish said: They taught this only when one intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man’s death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Didn’t such an incident occur involving Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished, who permitted women to marry based upon the testimony of gentiles while he was with eighty-five Elders? He said to the Elders: They taught that one may not rely upon a gentile’s testimony only when he intended to permit the woman to remarry, but if he merely intended to testify about the man’s death, his testimony is considered valid testimony. But the Rabbis did not concur with him on this, and they maintained that one may not rely upon the testimony of a gentile at all.
Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita, stating: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall, and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid, and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraitaand he states about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that we do not require intent for slaughter? Rava said: It is Rabbi Natan, as Oshaya, the youngest of the company of Sages, taught a baraita: If one threw a knife to embed it in the wall and in the course of its flight the knife went and slaughtered an animal in its proper manner, Rabbi Natan deems the slaughter valid and the Rabbis deem the slaughter not valid. Oshaya teaches the baraitaand he says about it: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan that there is no need for intent to perform a valid act of slaughter.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day. The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: If the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification. However, if the new moon was seen not at its anticipated time, the court must sanctify the New Moon.
A tannataught: The beams were lengthened to such an extent that they not only reached the walls, but they continued until they jutted out a cubit from this side and a cubit from that side. And some say that they extended with segments [senifin], adding new walls at both ends of the beams. It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: I saw that house, and its beams jutted out a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. And they said to me: This is the house that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa roofed by means of his prayer.
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
Rav Pappa objects to the claim of the baraita that the mishna refers only to one specific case: But isn’t there also that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case in which five people were sitting on one bench [safsal] and it did not break, and then one additional person came and sat upon it and broke it with his added weight, the latter individual is liable for all the damage. And Rav Pappa said by way of clarification that this applies in a case where the last individual to sit down was as heavy as Pappa bar Abba. Since he could have potentially broken it even on his own, he had no right to use it. In this case, even though the weight of the first five individuals was presumably a contributing factor in causing the damage, since the damage was ultimately caused by the additional weight of the last individual, he is liable for all of the damage. Seemingly, this is an additional example of the mishna’s principle, and the baraita should have mentioned it.
Rav Pappa said: A solution would be to write the names for these witnesses with saliva and have them trace their names with ink. And so Rav Pappa instructed Pappa the ox herder, who did not know how to sign his name, that the court should write his name with saliva and he should trace it with ink. The Gemara comments: This matter, the leniency to have the witnesses trace their names, applies only to bills of divorce, as there is a concern that witnesses will not be found, and the woman will be unable to remarry. However, for financial documents, the Sages did not allow this, and one must instead find witnesses who know how to sign their names.
On another occasion Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went and mixed his bread together with Ravina. By the time Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate one slice, Ravina ate eight. Rav Huna said jokingly: It is better to eat together with one hundred Pappas and not with one Ravina, because Ravina eats significantly more.
What is the origin of Trajan’s Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.
The Gemara relates that a man called Pappei Yona’a was poor and became wealthy. He built a mansion [appadna] on his land. There were these sesame seed pressers in his neighborhood who would work, and when they would press the sesame seeds their activity would shake his mansion. He came before Rav Ashi to complain. Rav Ashi said to him: When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Kahana, we would say that Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one’s arrows. Here too, because the sesame seed pressers cause immediate damage they must distance themselves.
As a remedy for a nosebleed, let the patient bring a man named Levi who is a priest, and that man should write for the patient the name Levi, backward. And if the patient is not able do this let him bring an ordinary man, and let that man write for the patient the following expression: I am Pappi Sheila bar Summakei. And that man should also write this backward.
The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. The Sages taught: One time, after the bar Kokheva rebellion, the evil empire of Rome decreed that Israel may not engage in the study and practice of Torah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torah study. Pappos said to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire?
The Sages said: Not a few days passed until they seized Rabbi Akiva and incarcerated him in prison, and seized Pappos ben Yehuda and incarcerated him alongside him. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Pappos, who brought you here? Pappos replied: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, for you were arrested on the charge of engaging in Torah study. Woe unto Pappos who was seized on the charge of engaging in idle matters.
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
Rav says: The bird called the shavor anderafta is permitted, but the piruz anderafta is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Piruz the Evil. Rav Huna says: The bird called the bunya is permitted. The parva is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Parva’a the Sorcerer.
Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,
Ḥanin ben Pineḥas says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into her mouth to remove a wood chip from between her teeth. The Sage Peleimu says: This is equivalent to the time that she may need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. He adds: Although there is no explicit proof from a verse for the matter, there is an allusion to the matter from the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26).
The Gemara discusses another opinion cited in the first baraita. Peleimu says: This is equivalent to the time that a woman may need to extend her hand into a basket in order to take a loaf of bread. Rav Ashi asks: Is this speaking of an occasion where the loaf adheres to the basket, or is it speaking of a case where it does not adhere? Is this speaking of a case where the basket is new, whereby the tips of the shoots forming the basket might restrain the loaf, or this speaking of where the basket is old and smooth, enabling easy removal? Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is hot and therefore softer and may adhere to the basket, or is this speaking of a case where the loaf is cold and easily removed?
The Sage Peleimu had the habit to say every day: An arrow in the eye of Satan, mocking the temptations of the evil inclination. One day, it was the eve of Yom Kippur, and Satan appeared to him as a pauper who came and called him to the door, requesting alms. Peleimu brought out bread to him. Satan said to him: On a day like today, everyone is inside eating, and shall I stand outside and eat? Peleimu brought him inside and gave him bread. He said to him: On a day like today, everyone is sitting at the table, and shall I sit by myself? They brought him and sat him at the table. He was sitting and had covered himself with boils and pus, and he was doing repulsive things at the table. Peleimu said to the pauper:
With regard to the formula of Grace after Meals, the Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who did not say: A desirable, good, and spacious land in the blessing of the land, and who did not mention the royal house of David in the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem, did not fulfill his obligation. Naḥum the Elder says: One must mention the covenant of circumcision in the blessing of the land. Rabbi Yosei says: One must mention the Torah in the blessing of the land. Pelimu, one of the last tanna’im, says: He must make mention of the covenant of circumcision preceding mention of the Torah, as this, the Torah, was given to the Jewish people with three covenants,
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The danger referred to by the Tosefta is the danger posed by gentiles. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the tannaPelimu. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a hole in a wall located between the residences of a Jew and a gentile, one searches in the hole as far as his hand reaches, and the rest he renders null and void in his heart. Pelimu said: One does not search the entire hole at all, due to the danger involved.
§ Apropos Geviha ben Pesisa and his cleverness in debate, the Gemara cites additional incidents where he represented the Jewish people in debates. The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fourth day in Nisan it is a joyous day, since the usurpers [dimusana’ei] were expelled from Judea and Jerusalem. When the people of Afrikiya came to judgment with the Jewish people before the emperor, Alexander of Macedon, they said to him: The land of Canaan is ours, as it is written: “This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its borders” (Numbers 34:2). And the people of Afrikiya said, referring to themselves: Canaan is the forefather of these people.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Media, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.
§ The Sages taught: The wise people of Alexandria asked twelve matters of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥinnana. Three of them were matters of wisdom, three were matters of aggada, three were matters of ignorance, and three were matters of behavior.
Rav Safra said to Rava: With regard to the people of the city of Akistefon, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of the city of Ardeshir, and the people of Ardeshir, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of Akistefon, as though the two settlements were a single city; isn’t there the Tigris River, which separates them by more than 141? cubits? How can two cities that are separated by more than two karpef-lengths be considered a single entity?
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Media, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.
It was related that Abaye permitted the people of Bar Hamdakh to remove the branches of the trees from the river on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sekhavta to dredge out a river that had become blocked. Rav Ashi permitted his townsmen, the people of Mata Meḥasya, to clean out the nearby Burnitz River. He said: Since the public drinks from it, it is considered like a public need, and we learned in the mishna that one may tend to all other public needs on the intermediate days of a Festival.
Apropos the previous discussion, Rav Asi said: A priest from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark in order to lead the service because they pronounce alef as ayin and ayin as alef, and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.
Apropos the previous discussion, Rav Asi said: A priest from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark in order to lead the service because they pronounce alef as ayin and ayin as alef, and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Media, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.
The Gemara relates: On another occasion, the people of Egypt came to judgment with the Jewish people before Alexander of Macedon. The Egyptian people said to Alexander: It says in the Torah: “And the Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and they lent them” (Exodus 12:36). Give us the silver and gold that you took from us; you claimed that you were borrowing it and you never returned it.
GEMARA:A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn in the mishna: A widow is sustained, or did we learn in the mishna: A widow who is sustained? There is a difference between the two versions. If we learned in the mishna: A widow is sustained, that means that every widow is sustained by her husband’s heirs. And the mishna is in accordance with the custom of the people of Galilee, who write a clause in the marriage contract stipulating that it is the widow’s right to remain in her husband’s house after his death and to be supported from his estate as long as she does not remarry. And it is impossible for the heirs not to give her sustenance.
Rabbi Yehuda says: This is the halakha with regard to both one who writes his portion over to the Nasi and one who writes it over to a common person. Rabbi Yehuda adds: What is the difference between one who writes it over to the Nasi and one who writes it over to a common person? That one who writes it to the Nasi need not formally confer possession of the item, whereas one who writes it over to a common person must confer possession to him. And the Rabbis say: Both this one and that one must confer possession, and they specifically mentioned the Nasi only so as to speak in the present, addressing situations that were prevalent. Rabbi Yehuda says: The people of Galilee do not have to write their portion over to the Nasibecause their fathers already wrote it for them, declaring that all the public property belongs to him.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: The people of Galilee do not have to confer possession of their portion to the Nasibecause their forefathers already wrote it for them. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The people of Galilee were quarrelsome [kanteranin] and would often take vows prohibiting benefit from one another. So their forefathers arose and wrote their portions of the public property over to the Nasi so that they would be able to use communal property.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion (Middot 1:6): The northeast chamber of the Chamber of the Hearth was the chamber in which the Hasmoneans sequestered the altar stones that the people of Greece desecrated. And Rav Sheshet says: This means that they desecrated the stones by using them for idol worship. This indicates that Temple vessels that were used in idolatrous worship can no longer be used and must be sequestered.
The Sages taught a related matter in the Tosefta: The people of Jericho performed six actions, three in keeping with the will of the Sages and three against the will of the Sages. And these are what they did in keeping with the will of the Sages: They would graft palm trees the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan; and they would bundle Shema; and they would harvest grain before the omer offering was brought. And these are what they did against the will of the Sages: They would pile the harvest before the omer; and they would make breaches in the walls of their gardens and their orchards to feed fallen fruit to the poor during drought years, so that the poor could take the fruit that had fallen on Shabbat and Festivals; and they would permit the use of consecrated branches of carob and of sycamore trees. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that this harvest performed by the residents of Jericho was against the will of the Sages? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The people of Jericho would harvest before the omer, in keeping with the will of the Sages, and they would pile the grain before the omer, against the will of the Sages, but the Sages did not reprimand them?
It was taught in the baraita that the residents of Jericho created breaches so that during years of famine the poor could take fruit that fell on Shabbat and Festivals. Ulla said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This dispute between the residents of Jericho and the Sages is with regard to dates no longer attached to the tree that fell onto the upper palm branches [makhebedot]. The Sages hold: We issue a decree to prohibit taking these dates, lest one climb the tree and pick dates still attached to the tree. And the people of Jericho hold: We do not issue a decree lest one climb the tree and pick dates. However, with regard to dates that fell onto lower palm branches [keifin], everyone agrees that taking fruit from these branches is permitted.
On the topic of the sins of Jerusalem and the abundance that existed before its destruction, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The people of Jerusalem were people of arrogance. They would couch their crude behavior in euphemisms. A person would say to another: On what did you dine today? Well-kneaded bread or bread that is not well-kneaded? On white wine or
Rabbi Yoḥanan said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to war do not go out first, but go out last. The reason is so that if your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, you will enter the refuge of the city first. And it is better to make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with one upon whom the hour smiles.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act in public, because of the incident that occurred involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If your daughter has grown up, it is better to free your Canaanite slave and give him to her than to leave her to find a husband on her own. And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, as she is especially fond of him. What is the reason for this warning? Rav Ḥisda said: Due to the possibility of licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to the fact that she might give him all your money and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since either of these could happen, it is best to be prudent.
Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: Which type of person has a share in the World-to-Come? He said to him: We can derive this from the verse: “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying: This is the path, walk on it, when you turn to the right or to the left” (Isaiah 30:21). In other words, if people eulogize one by saying that others should follow in his path, he must have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Anyone with whom our Rabbis are pleased has a share in the World-to-Come. In interpreting the verse: “And the eulogizers walk about the marketplace” (Ecclesiastes 12:5), the people of the Galilee say: Do things that you will want people to say at your eulogy in front of your bier. The people of Judea say: Do things that you want people to say at your eulogy behind your bier. The Gemara remarks: And they do not disagree; this Sage expressed it according to the norm in his place, and this Sage expressed it differently according to the norm in his place. The custom in the Galilee was that the eulogizers would stand before the bier and the custom in Judea was that eulogizers would stand behind the bier.
The Gemara continues the discussion relating to study and comprehension, and cites that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to the people of Judea, who were particular in their speech and always made certain that it was both precise and refined, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.
The Gemara asks: Is this matter at all dependent on being particular with one’s language? Rather, with regard to the people of Judea, who were precise in their language and who would formulate mnemonics for their studies, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not precise in their language and who would not formulate mnemonics, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.
The Gemara asks: Must he recognize only the crow and nothing more? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Every orev after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:15). With regard to the orev, this is the well-known crow; as for the phrase “after its kinds,” Rabbi Eliezer says: It is written to include the zarzir, another type of crow, to teach that it is non-kosher. The Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: But wouldn’t the people of Kefar Temarta in Judea eat the zarzir, because it has a crop? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They too will be judged in the future for their transgression.
§ The Gemara digresses to discuss the tribal portion of Asher, in which the city of Tekoa is located: The Sages taught in a baraita: In his blessing to the tribe of Asher, Moses said: “He will be pleasing to his brothers, and immerse his foot in oil” (Deuteronomy 33:24). This is referring to the portion of Asher, as the oil flows there like a spring. The Gemara relates: They said that once, the people of Laodicea were in need of oil. They appointed a gentile messenger [polmostos] and said to him: Go and bring us one millionmaneh worth of oil.
It was related that Abaye permitted the people of Bar Hamdakh to remove the branches of the trees from the river on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sekhavta to dredge out a river that had become blocked. Rav Ashi permitted his townsmen, the people of Mata Meḥasya, to clean out the nearby Burnitz River. He said: Since the public drinks from it, it is considered like a public need, and we learned in the mishna that one may tend to all other public needs on the intermediate days of a Festival.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri stood on his feet and, contrary to this statement, said: And what shall the people of Babylonia, who have only sesame oil, do? And what shall the people of Media, who have only nut oil, do? And what shall the people of Alexandria, who have only radish oil, do? And what shall the people of Cappadocia, who have neither this nor that but only naphtha, do? Rather, you have a prohibition only with regard to those substances with regard to which the Sages said: One may not light with them. All other oils are permitted.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is prohibited to use candlelight even to distinguish between his garments and the garments of his wife. Because that requires a certain degree of scrutiny, there is concern lest he adjust the wick in order to see better. To qualify this statement, Rava said: We only said this with regard to the garments of the people of the city of Meḥoza, as there the men’s garments are wide and ornamented similar to the women’s garments; however, with regard to farmers and village residents, they know the difference between men’s and women’s garments. There is no concern lest they adjust the wick to distinguish between the garments, as the differences between men’s garments and women’s garments are obvious. Even with regard to the clothing of the people of Meḥoza, we only said that it is prohibited to distinguish between men’s and women’s garments with regard to the garments of old women; however, with regard to the garments of young women, they know the difference and there is no concern lest one adjust the wick to distinguish between them.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said: And their faces on the Day of Judgment will be black and sooty like the bottom of a pot. And Rava said: And they shall include the most handsome, i.e., upstanding, of the people of Meḥoza, as Rava thought that even the most upstanding people of the city of Meḥoza were wicked, and they shall be called the people of Gehenna.
Rava said to the people of Meḥoza: Those of you who do not follow the coffin all the way to the place of interment should begin counting your days of mourning from when you turn your faces from the city gates to return home. Since the dead were commonly transported long distances and buried far away, most of the mourners did not accompany their deceased relatives to the actual site of burial.
The eldest member of the community says to the congregation statements of reproof, for example: Our brothers, it is not stated with regard to the people of Nineveh: And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting. Rather, the verse says: “And God saw their deeds, that they had turned from their evil way” (Jonah 3:10). And in the Prophets it says: “And rend your hearts and not your garments, and return to the Lord your God” (Joel 2:13). This teaches that prayer and fasting are insufficient, as one must also repent and amend his ways in practice.
What does he say? Our brothers, it is not sackcloth and fasting that cause atonement for our sins. Rather, repentance and good deeds will cause our atonement. This is as we find with regard to the people of Nineveh, that it is not stated about them: And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting. Rather, the verse states: “And God saw their deeds, that they had turned from their evil way” (Jonah 3:10).
It was related that Abaye permitted the people of Bar Hamdakh to remove the branches of the trees from the river on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sekhavta to dredge out a river that had become blocked. Rav Ashi permitted his townsmen, the people of Mata Meḥasya, to clean out the nearby Burnitz River. He said: Since the public drinks from it, it is considered like a public need, and we learned in the mishna that one may tend to all other public needs on the intermediate days of a Festival.
Rabban Gamliel continued to instruct the scribe: And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Diaspora in Babylonia, and to our brothers who are in Media, and to the rest of the entire Jewish Diaspora, may your peace increase forever. We are informing you that the fledglings are tender, and the lambs are thin, and time for the spring has not come. And consequently, the matter is good before me and before my colleagues, i.e., in our estimation, and I have consequently added thirty days to this year. The third letter indicates that evidently Rabban Gamliel included others in his decision. The Gemara rejects this, and explains: Perhaps this incident occurred after they deposed Rabban Gamliel from his position as Nasi. When he was reinstated, he shared his office with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Therefore, he wrote the decision in the name of his colleagues as well.
Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: Which type of person has a share in the World-to-Come? He said to him: We can derive this from the verse: “And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying: This is the path, walk on it, when you turn to the right or to the left” (Isaiah 30:21). In other words, if people eulogize one by saying that others should follow in his path, he must have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Anyone with whom our Rabbis are pleased has a share in the World-to-Come. In interpreting the verse: “And the eulogizers walk about the marketplace” (Ecclesiastes 12:5), the people of the Galilee say: Do things that you will want people to say at your eulogy in front of your bier. The people of Judea say: Do things that you want people to say at your eulogy behind your bier. The Gemara remarks: And they do not disagree; this Sage expressed it according to the norm in his place, and this Sage expressed it differently according to the norm in his place. The custom in the Galilee was that the eulogizers would stand before the bier and the custom in Judea was that eulogizers would stand behind the bier.
The Gemara continues the discussion relating to study and comprehension, and cites that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to the people of Judea, who were particular in their speech and always made certain that it was both precise and refined, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.
The Gemara asks: Is this matter at all dependent on being particular with one’s language? Rather, with regard to the people of Judea, who were precise in their language and who would formulate mnemonics for their studies, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not precise in their language and who would not formulate mnemonics, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them.
Rabban Gamliel said to the scribe: Take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Upper Galilee, and to our brothers, the people of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication of tithes that had been separated from produce but not yet given to their designated recipients, as is to be done in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, to separate the tithe from the vat of olives, because most of the local olives were grown in the Galilee. Rabban Gamliel continued, instructing the scribe: And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the South, meaning the area of Judea and its environs, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication, to separate the tithe from the mounds of stalks of grains, because most of the local grain was grown in the Judea region.
Rabban Gamliel said to the scribe: Take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Upper Galilee, and to our brothers, the people of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication of tithes that had been separated from produce but not yet given to their designated recipients, as is to be done in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, to separate the tithe from the vat of olives, because most of the local olives were grown in the Galilee. Rabban Gamliel continued, instructing the scribe: And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the South, meaning the area of Judea and its environs, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication, to separate the tithe from the mounds of stalks of grains, because most of the local grain was grown in the Judea region.
The Sages taught: There was an incident involving the people of the Upper Galilee, who bought for a poor person of noble descent from the city of Tzippori a litra of meat every day. The Gemara asks: If they provided him with the reasonable ration of a litra of meat, what is the novelty in this incident? Why does it bear repeating? Rav Huna said: It was a litra of meat of poultry, which is very expensive. And if you wish, say instead that for the weight of a litra of coins, they bought him actual red meat. The price of ordinary meat was so expensive that they had to pay the exorbitant price of a litra of coins. Rav Ashi said they did not spend a litra of coins for him. Rather, there, in the Galilee, it was a small village, and every day they would lose an entire animal just for him. They would slaughter an animal daily, simply to provide him with fresh meat, although there was otherwise no market for such a plentiful supply of meat in the village.
Rabban Gamliel said to the scribe: Take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Upper Galilee, and to our brothers, the people of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication of tithes that had been separated from produce but not yet given to their designated recipients, as is to be done in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, to separate the tithe from the vat of olives, because most of the local olives were grown in the Galilee. Rabban Gamliel continued, instructing the scribe: And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the South, meaning the area of Judea and its environs, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come for eradication, to separate the tithe from the mounds of stalks of grains, because most of the local grain was grown in the Judea region.
Alternatively, the phrase “after its kinds” is written to include the white senunit and teach that it is non-kosher; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The Rabbis said to him: But don’t the people of the upper Galilee eat it, because its gizzard can be peeled? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: They too will be judged in the future for their transgression. In any event, the baraita indicates that other non-kosher birds exist that have two signs, like the crow. The Gemara responds: Rather, Rav Naḥman must have meant that one must be able to recognize the well-known crow and all other species of crow.
And we learned in the mishna that one may not light the Shabbat lamp with kik oil. The Gemara asks: What is kik oil? Shmuel said: I asked all the seafarers, and they said to me that there is a bird in the cities on the sea coast, and kik is its name.Kik oil is produced from that bird. Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: This is referring to cotton oil. Reish Lakish said: It is the oil made from the seed of a plant like the castor plant [kikayon] of Jonah. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I have seen the species of the castor plant of Jonah, and it is similar to the ricinus tree and it grows in swamps, and they place it at the entrance of shops for shade, and they produce oil from its seeds, and all the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, rest beneath its branches.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan would spit from the thought of Babylonian kuta?, because he found it so disgusting. Rav Yosef said: Then we should spit from the thought of Rabbi Abba’s chicken, which is even more disgusting to people from Babylonia. And furthermore, Rav Gaza said: On one occasion I happened to come there, to Eretz Yisrael, and I prepared Babylonian kuta?, and all of the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, asked me for it. Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.
However, according to the one who said that the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My offering” is read as Shekalim, does that portion ever occur at that time of the year? That portion usually occurs much later in the year, in the summer. The Gemara answers: Yes, it sometimes occurs that this portion is read during the beginning of Adar, for the people of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who complete the cycle of reading the Torah not in one year but in three years.
The Gemara answers: Do you think that the story about Tiberias refers to the latter clause of the mishna? No, it refers to the first clause of the mishna, and it should be understood as follows: The Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagree with regard to wrapping an egg in cloths. The Rabbis say: One may not wrap it in cloths and Rabbi Yosei permits doing so. And the Rabbis said the following to Rabbi Yosei: Wasn’t the incident involving the people of Tiberias with derivatives of the sun, as the hot springs of Tiberias are not heated by fire, and nevertheless the Sages prohibited them from using the water? Rabbi Yosei said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives of fire, as the hot springs of Tiberias are hot because they pass over the entrance to Gehenna. They are heated by hellfire, which is a bona fide underground fire. That is not the case with derivatives of the sun, which are not heated by fire at all.
From this action performed by the people of Tiberias and the fact that the Sages prohibited them from using the water, the conclusion is that the practice of insulating a pot in something that increases the heat over the course of Shabbat was abolished on Shabbat. And not only is it prohibited to do so on Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited while it is still day before Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the people of Tiberias. Rav Naḥman said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. Even they reconsidered their position.
We learned in the mishna with regard to the incident, which related what the people of Tiberias did, that the legal status of water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing. The Gemara clarifies this matter: What type of bathing is this? If you say that it is referring to bathing one’s entire body, that is difficult. That would indicate that only water heated on Shabbat is prohibited for use in bathing one’s entire body; however, bathing one’s entire body in hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. That cannot be. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may use it the next day to wash his face, his hands, and his feet incrementally; however, not to wash his entire body? Rather, it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing his face, his hands, and his feet.
Apropos the previous discussion, Rav Asi said: A priest from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark in order to lead the service because they pronounce alef as ayin and ayin as alef, and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.
§ The mishna teaches: Absalom was excessively proud of his hair, and therefore he was hung by his hair. The Sages taught (Tosefta 3:16): Absalom rebelled and sinned due to his hair, as it is stated: “Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he shaved his head, as it was at every year’s end that he shaved it; because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he shaved it, and he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, by the king’s stone” (II Samuel 14:25–26). What is the king’s stone? The Sages taught: A stone with which the people of Tiberias and the people of Tzippori weigh items.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: A similar incident occurred and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reversed his ruling about the incident.
Rav Dimi would teach the incident in this way, as described above. Rav Safra would teach it in this slightly altered way: There was an incident, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wished to act in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis of the mishna. Perata, son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata, grandson of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before him: If that is the case, what advantage is there to the power of the court over an ordinary person? Consequently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not take action according to the statement of the Rabbis.
It was taught in a baraita, Rabban Gamliel said: In three aspects of their conduct, I like the Persians: They are a modest people; they are modest in their eating, they are modest in the lavatory, and they are modest in another matter, i.e., sexual relations.
While they have been praised here regarding certain specific aspects of their conduct, the Gemara proceeds to offer another perspective on the Persians based on a verse describing the destruction of Babylonia at the hands of the Persian and Median armies: “I have commanded My consecrated ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger, even My proudly exulting ones” (Isaiah 13:3). Rav Yosef taught a baraita: These are the Persians who are consecrated and designated for Gehenna, for they have been sent by God to carry out his mission of anger, and they will be sent to Gehenna.
On the topic of meals, the Gemara relates the following: The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: Although you are elderly Sages, the Persians are more expert than you with regard to the required etiquette at meals. The Persian custom is that when there are two divans on which they would recline, the greater of the two people reclines first and the person second to him in importance reclines on the divan above him, alongside his head. When there are three divans, the greatest of the three reclines on the middle divan, the one second to him in importance reclines on the divan above him, and the one third to him in importance reclines on the divan below the greatest of the three.
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who was appointed as High Priest, who prepared the incense outside and then brought it into the Holy of Holies. Upon his emergence he was overjoyed that he had succeeded. The father of that Sadducee met him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadducees and you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, we fear the Pharisees and do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son said to his father: All my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. I said: When will the opportunity become available to me, and I will fulfill it according to the Sadducee interpretation? Now that the opportunity has become available to me, will I not fulfill it?
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).
And there was one person present, a scoffer, a man of an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, the Sages, are against you. In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: And what shall I do to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: Have them stand by wearing the frontplate between your eyes. Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. He had the Pharisees stand by wearing the frontplate between his eyes.
Rabbi Dostai said to him: Those people who were in possession of the vessel, they are the size of a cubit, and their hats were a cubit, and they spoke from their midpoints, and their names were frightening: Arda and Arta and Pili Bereish. If one were to say to them: Restrain this person, they would restrain him. If one were to say to them: Kill him, they would kill. Had they killed Dostai, i.e., me, who would give Yannai, my father, another son like me?
In any event, it was taught that there was a chamber of the High Priest in the north of the courtyard, and there is proof that he also had one chamber in the south of the courtyard, as we learned in a mishna: Seven gates were in the Temple courtyard, three in the north and three in the south and one in the east. The gates in the south were the Gate of Fire; second to it was the Gate of the Offering; third to it was the Gate of the Water. The gate that was in the east was called the Gate of Nicanor, and two chambers were there next to the Gate of Nicanor, one to its right and one to its left. One was the Chamber of Pineḥas the Dresser, where the priestly vestments were stored, and one was the Chamber of the Preparers of the Griddle-Cake Offering, where the daily griddle-cake offering was prepared on behalf of the High Priest.
It was related that something unpleasant happened to Pineḥas, brother of Mar Shmuel, that is to say, one of his close relatives died. Shmuel entered to ask him the reason, i.e., to console him. He saw that Pineḥas’s nails were long, and said to him: Why do you not cut them? Pineḥas replied: If it were your relative who died, and you were in mourning, would you treat the matter so lightly and cut your nails?
With regard to the statement of the mishna that constant tears are examined by feeding the animal moist and then dry fodder for a period of three months, Pineḥas, the brother of Mar Shmuel, raises a dilemma before Shmuel: If the animal ate the fodder in the required manner and was not healed, which means that it is blemished, is it a retroactive blemish from the day it was discovered, or is it a blemish from that point forward?
And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, although the members of this family were violent. And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.
The second cry was: Open the gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings. They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four se’a of doves
The Gemara relates another story about righteous individuals praying for rain. Rabbi Zerika said to Rav Safra: Come and see what the difference is between the powerful men of Eretz Yisrael and the pious men of Babylonia. This comparison serves to highlight the righteousness of the great men of Eretz Yisrael. By the pious men of Babylonia, I mean Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda. When the world is in need of rain, these Sages say: Let us assemble together and pray for mercy, and perhaps the Holy One, Blessed be He, will be appeased and bring rain. In this manner, the pious men of Babylonia publicized their prayers for rain.
Rav says: The bird called the shavor anderafta is permitted, but the piruz anderafta is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Piruz the Evil. Rav Huna says: The bird called the bunya is permitted. The parva is forbidden. And your mnemonic to remember this is the known personality Parva’a the Sorcerer.
§ It is taught in the mishna: Beit Shammai say: The refusal must take place specifically in the presence of the husband, but Beit Hillel say: Either in his presence or in his absence. It is taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But didn’t the wife of Pishon the camel driver refuse him in his absence? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Pishon the camel driver measured using a defective standard, as he did not properly take care of the property she brought into the marriage, and therefore the Sages measured him with a defective standard [midda kefusha]. The marriage in that case was annulled by the Sages and the refusal was not treated as a standard refusal.
The Gemara relates another story about righteous individuals praying for rain. Rabbi Zerika said to Rav Safra: Come and see what the difference is between the powerful men of Eretz Yisrael and the pious men of Babylonia. This comparison serves to highlight the righteousness of the great men of Eretz Yisrael. By the pious men of Babylonia, I mean Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda. When the world is in need of rain, these Sages say: Let us assemble together and pray for mercy, and perhaps the Holy One, Blessed be He, will be appeased and bring rain. In this manner, the pious men of Babylonia publicized their prayers for rain.
By contrast, the powerful men of Eretz Yisrael, such as Rabbi Yona, the father of Rabbi Mani, acted differently. When the world was in need of rain, he enters his house and say to his household: Give me my sack [gevalki] and I will go and buy myself a dinar of grain. When he went outside, he went and stood in a low place, as it is written: “Out of the depths I have called You, O Lord” (Psalms 130:1). And he would stand in a secluded place, and cover himself with sackcloth, and pray for mercy, and rain would come. When he would come home, they would say to him: Did the Master bring grain? He said to them: I said to myself, since rain has now come, there will be relief in the world and prices will soon go down. In this manner, he hid his greatness even from his own household.
MISHNA: A wise gentile, Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?
Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.
The Sages taught: With regard to the women who raise their children for the red heifer, i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood.
And furthermore, another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav Ḥisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [koret] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” (Proverbs 31:6). And it is taught in a baraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: “Give [tenu] strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, the community.
§ The Gemara relates: Queen Cleopatra asked Rabbi Meir a question. She said: I know that the dead will live, as it is written: “And may they blossom out of the city like grass of the earth” (Psalms 72:16). Just as grass grows, so too, the dead will come to life. But when they arise, will they arise naked or will they arise with their garments? Rabbi Meir said to her: It is derived a fortiori from wheat. If wheat, which is buried naked, meaning that the kernel is sown without the chaff, emerges with several garments of chaff, all the more so will the righteous, who are buried with their garments, arise with their garments.
§ The mishna teaches: And Kratesis, and the day of the festival of their kings. The Gemara asks: What is the festival of Kratesis? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It commemorates the day when Rome seized control of an empire. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Two festivals are Kratesis and the day when Rome seized control of an empire? This indicates that Kratesis and the day when Rome seized control of an empire are two separate festivals. Rav Yosef said: On two separate occasions Rome seized control of an empire. One occurred in the days of Queen Cleopatra, when they conquered Egypt, and one happened much earlier, when Rome seized control in the days of the Greeks.
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting the sukkaand did not say anything to her about the sukka not being fit. The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.
And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.
The mishna cites a related story: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene, whose son had gone to war, and she said: If my son will return from war safely, I will be a nazirite for seven years. And her son returned safely from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. And at the end of seven years, she ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her, in accordance with their opinion, that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years. And at the end of those seven years she became ritually impure, and was therefore required to observe yet another seven years of naziriteship, as ritual impurity negates the tally of a nazirite. And she was found to be a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years and not twenty-one.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.
The Gemara relates that Ravin and Abaye were sitting before Rabbana Neḥemya, brother of the Exilarch. Ravin saw that Rabbana Neḥemya was wearing metaksa, a type of silk. Ravin said to Abaye: This is the kalakh that we learned in our mishna. Abaye said to him: We call it shira peranda.
Similarly, it is related that those who came to buy the wine of Rabbana Ukva the orphan pulled it into their possession after having agreed on a purchase price of four dinars per barrel. But before the buyers actually paid for the wine, it increased in value and its price stood at six dinars per barrel. The parties came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling on the matter. He said to them: This is subject to what Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi said, as Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Orphans’ property is like consecrated property, and is fully acquired only with the transfer of money. Consequently, the buyers pay the current, higher price or the sale can be rendered void.
In this baraitathe Master said that one who is impure because of a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. The Gemara notes: This statement supports the opinion of Rabbi El’ai, as Rabbi El’ai said that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: Thehalakha is that one who experienced a seminal emission may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. This dispute is parallel a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; that is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both this and that are prohibited. And some say that he said: Both this and that are permitted.
Regarding this Rabbi Elazar said, and some say it was Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: This was taught with regard to murky water, which is considered to be like solid earth. Therefore, it constitutes a barrier so that his heart does not see his nakedness.
It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again.
The Gemara asks: How is this inferred from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a baraita, which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferred by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the words among, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there, regarding Korah’s congregation, it is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” (Numbers 16:21). Just as there among connotes ten, so too here, among connotes ten. The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten.
We learned in the mishna that over vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. The Gemara comments: The mishna taught vegetables together with, and therefore similar to, bread, and from this analogy one may infer: Just as bread is food that was transformed by fire, so too vegetables retain the blessing: Who creates fruits of the ground, after they have been transformed by fire. Rabbenai said in the name of Abaye: This means that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. From where is this matter inferred? From the fact that the mishna taught vegetables similar to bread.
The Gemara asks: And were there no more miracles in the Temple? But didn’t Rabbi Levi say that this matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: The place of the Ark of the Covenant is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies. Based on that measurement, the Ark should not have fit inside the hall. The Holy of Holies measured twenty cubits by twenty cubits (see I Kings 6), and a baraita states that there were ten cubits of space on either side of the Ark. Therefore, it was only through a miracle that the Ark fit in the Holy of Holies. And Rabbenai said that Shmuel said: It was through a miracle that the cherubs that Solomon placed in the Holy of Holies would stand. Their wingspan was twenty cubits, and since the length of the chamber was the same, there was no room for the bodies of the cherubs. There were additional miracles performed in the Temple.
The Gemara answers: It is clear that the document was ratified by the requisite three judges, as it is written in the ratification: Before us, the court of our teacher Rav Ashi, which presumably conforms to rabbinic protocol. The Gemara asks: And perhaps the Rabbis of the court of Rav Ashi hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel and they convened an impudent court, whose ruling is binding. The Gemara answers: It is clear, as it is written in the ratification: Before us, the court of our teacher Rav Ashi, and our teacher Rav Ashi said to us how to ratify the document.
Later, Ḥanan the tailor happened to meet Rav Huna, and he said to him: From where could poor Rav Yosef have known the answer to this question? Ḥanan continued: There was an incident in which I was involved, as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rabena’a, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana to ask him the same question, and the answer was not available to him either. I then came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya, who said to me: You have fallen into my hand, i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question. This is what Shmuel says: The wife of a Ḥaver is herself considered like a Ḥaver, and you may therefore rely on her statement.
Based on the fact that the word appointed indicates that the scapegoat is sent away even on Shabbat, Rafram said: That is to say that the concept of eiruv and the prohibition against carrying out apply to Shabbat, but eiruv and carrying out do not apply to Yom Kippur. If these halakhot applied equally to Yom Kippur, and nevertheless the Torah commanded that the scapegoat be sent away, it would be unnecessary to derive that the same is true even if Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat.
Incidental to this, the Gemara reports: The Exilarch came to deliver a lecture in Rav Natan’s study hall in Hagronya. Rafram and all the Sages came to the lecture, but Ravina did not come. The next day, when he came, Rafram wanted to remove any anger towards Ravina from the mind of the Exilarch, for missing the lecture. Rafram therefore asked Ravina: What is the reason that the Master did not come to the lecture? He said to him: My foot hurt. He said to him: You should have put shoes on. Ravina answered him: It was the back of the foot that hurt, so wearing shoes would have been hard for me.
The Gemara offers another example: Rafram once eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, Rabbi Zeira once eulogized a certain Sage inside a synagogue. He said: Whether due to my honor, or whether due to the honor of the deceased, everyone will come to the eulogy.
Returning to the tractate’s central topic, Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master say to us some of those outstanding statements that you said in the name of Rav Ḥisda with regard to matters of the synagogue.
The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn’t Rafram bar Pappa say that Rav Ḥisda said: One may stand opposite a bathroom and pray. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: With what are we dealing here? With a bathroom that has no feces, and therefore there is no need to distance himself to that extent.
The mishna states that Rabbi Akiva holds that in the synagogue, one recites: Bless the Lord, while Rabbi Yishmael said that he recites: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rafram bar Pappa happened to come to the synagogue of Abei Givar when he rose to read from the Torah scroll and recited: Bless the Lord, and was silent, and did not recite: The blessed One. Because Rafram bar Pappa followed the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and those present were not accustomed to that ruling, everyone in the synagogue cried out: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: You black pot, a fond nickname for a Torah scholar who invests great effort in Torah study and worship of God, why are you involving yourself in this tannaitic dispute? Although Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree, Rabbi Yishmael’s formula, in which Rabbi Akiva’s formula is included, is acceptable to both. Furthermore, standard practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: There, with regard to bread, it is due to the scent that we require three handbreadths to obscure it from the dog. Here, with regard to money, it is because it must be obscured from the eye that we bury it. Scent is not relevant, and therefore we do not need three handbreadths. The Gemara asks: And how deep must the money be buried? Rafram from Sikhera said: One handbreadth.
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im? The Gemara enumerates the seven halakhot: As Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rakhish bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: If the animal was diseased even in one kidney, it is a tereifa. And we learned in a mishna (54a) that if the spleen was removed the animal is kosher, and with regard to this mishna, Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: They taught this only when the spleen was removed; but if it was perforated, the animal is a tereifa.
§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken. The Gemara notes: This list is compiled to the exclusion of a diseased organ, which Rakhish bar Pappa mentioned with regard to a kidney. Ulla does not deem this a tereifa.
§ The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached
Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to Ravina: It is not with regard to the strip of the red heifer that they disagree; rather, it is with regard to the strip of the scapegoat that they disagree. And on that very day that they disputed this issue, Ravya bar Kisi died, and they made a mnemonic out of it, associating the halakha with his name: The death of Ravya bar Kisi atones like the scapegoat, since the death of the righteous person atones for his generation.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei: A single regret or pang of guilt in one’s heart is preferable to many lashes administered by others that cause only physical pain, as it is stated: “And she chases her lovers, but she does not overtake them; she seeks them, but she will not find them; and she will say ‘I will go and return to my first husband; for it was better for me then than now’” (Hosea 2:9). Remorse is more effective than any externally imposed punishment listed in the verses that follow (Hosea 2:11–19). And Reish Lakish said that in the Bible, it seems that such remorse is preferable to one hundred lashes, as it is stated: “A rebuke enters deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred lashes to a fool” (Proverbs 17:10).
Continuing to extol communal prayer, Reish Lakish said: One who has a synagogue nearby in his city but does not enter to pray there is called an evil neighbor, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: As for all My evil neighbors who touch My inheritance which I have caused My people Israel to inherit, behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them” (Jeremiah 12:14). One who only touches, but does not enter the place of prayer, My inheritance, is considered an evil neighbor. And furthermore, he is punished in that he causes himself and his children to go into exile, as it is stated: “Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and will pluck the house of Judah up from among them.”
With regard to the continuation of the verse: And they emptied Egypt, Rabbi Ami said: This indicates that they made Egypt like a trap in which there is no grain that serves as bait to attract birds. Reish Lakish said: They made Egypt like an abyss in the sea without fish.
The Gemara relates: The relative of Rabbi Asi had a certain promissory note that had a property guarantee written in it. He came before Rabbi Asi and said to him: Does the Sabbatical Year abrogate this loan, or does it not abrogate it? He said to him: It does not abrogate it. He left Rabbi Asi and came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and asked him the same question. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It does abrogate it.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages established that in Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered like a treatment that does not have a fixed cost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan had to take care of the wife of their father, who required treatment every day, and therefore her medical expenses were high. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask him what to do. He said to them: Go and fix a lump sum with the doctor for his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.
The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan had a wife of their father who would diminish his resources by spending wastefully on her sustenance. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask his advice. He said to them: Go and say to your father that he should set aside a certain portion of land for her sustenance. If she agrees to accept this land for her sustenance she has thereby relinquished her claim to the rest of the estate.
The Gemara relates: The relatives of Rabbi Yoḥanan seized a cow of orphans from an alley because the orphans’ father owed them money. They came before Rabbi Yoḥanan for judgment, and he said to them: It is well that you seized the cow and it is yours, in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon. They subsequently came before Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said to them: Go and return the cow to the orphans. They again came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, complaining that Reish Lakish had told them they must give back the cow, in opposition to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling. He said to them: What can I do, as one whose stature corresponds to my stature disagrees with me, and I cannot dismiss his opinion.
The Gemara recounts another incident: A resident of Naresh stole a scroll and sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya then went and sold it to a resident of Meḥoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified and Abaye said: The original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza eighty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward, the resident of Meḥoza should go and take the remaining forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya.
Rather, Rava said that the original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward the original owner of the scroll should go and collect forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya and eighty dinars from the resident of Naresh, as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.
The Gemara recounts another incident: A resident of Naresh stole a scroll and sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya then went and sold it to a resident of Meḥoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified and Abaye said: The original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza eighty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward, the resident of Meḥoza should go and take the remaining forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya.
Rather, Rava said that the original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward the original owner of the scroll should go and collect forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya and eighty dinars from the resident of Naresh, as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.
The Gemara recounts another incident: A resident of Naresh stole a scroll and sold it to a resident of Pappunya for eighty dinars. The resident of Pappunya then went and sold it to a resident of Meḥoza for one hundred and twenty dinars. In the end, the thief was identified and Abaye said: The original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza eighty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward, the resident of Meḥoza should go and take the remaining forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya.
Rather, Rava said that the original owner of the scroll should go and give the resident of Meḥoza one hundred and twenty dinars and take his scroll in return. And afterward the original owner of the scroll should go and collect forty dinars from the resident of Pappunya and eighty dinars from the resident of Naresh, as each profited from the sale in these amounts, respectively.
There are those who say that the Sages found out that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had not been buried when Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, his father, appeared to them in a dream and said to them: I have a single fledgling among you, i.e., my son, and you do not wish to bring it to me by burying him next to me. Consequently, the Sages went to tend to his burial. The residents of Akhbaria, the town where the corpse of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was resting, did not allow them to do so, as they realized that all the years that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had been resting in his attic, no wild beast had entered their town. The townspeople attributed this phenomenon to his merit and they did not want to lose this protection.
§ The residents of Akra De’Agma sent the following inquiry to Shmuel: Teach us, our master: If the court had a presumption concerning this son, that he is a firstborn, and his father says concerning another son of his: He is his firstborn, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in response: Both of these sons write an authorization,
If its womb was removed, the animal is kosher. If its liver became infested by worms, with regard to this there was an incident, and the residents of Asia Minor went up on three occasions to the great Sanhedrin in Yavne to inquire with regard to the halakha. On the first two occasions they did not receive an answer; on the third occasion, after the Sanhedrin had deliberated, they permitted the animal to them.
The Gemara relates: There were those residents of Bei Mikhsi who borrowed money from gentiles, and they did not have sufficient funds to repay them. As a result, the gentiles came and seized them as slaves. They came before Rav Huna and requested that he instruct the Jews to redeem them. Rav Huna said to them: What can I do for you, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed.
Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say thishalakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to Ḥamtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of Ḥamtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of Ḥamtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and Ḥamtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of Ḥamtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.
The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting Ḥamtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.
Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say thishalakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to Ḥamtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of Ḥamtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of Ḥamtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and Ḥamtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of Ḥamtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.
The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting Ḥamtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.
The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other. The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. When Ulla came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ulla said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. He said to him: You saved yourself by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life.
MISHNA: The mishna continues the discussion of the halakhot of Passover eve, along with other local customs. Six actions were performed by the Jewish residents of Jericho, contrary to common practice. With regard to three, the Sages reprimanded them, and with regard to three, the Sages did not reprimand them. And these are the ones with regard to which they did not reprimand them: The residents of Jericho would graft palm trees the entire day on the fourteenth of Nisan; and they would bundle Shema, as explained in the Gemara; and they would harvest and pile grain before the omer offering was brought. And these are the ones with regard to which the Sages reprimanded them: They would permit the use of consecrated branches of carob or sycamore trees. This refers to trees whose branches were cut and consecrated for Temple upkeep, which subsequently sprouted new branches;
MISHNA: Even before the omer offering is brought, one may reap a crop that grows in an irrigated field in the valleys, but one may not arrange the reaped stalks in a pile. The residents of Jericho, whose fields were categorized as irrigated fields in a valley, reaped the crops with the approval of the Sages and arranged the crops in a pile without the approval of the Sages, but the Sages did not reprimand them. One may reap crops in any field for fodder and feed it to an animal. Rabbi Yehuda said: When may one do so? At a time when he begins reaping before the crop reaches one-third of its potential growth. Rabbi Shimon says: One may reap and feed the crops to animals even after they reached one-third of their potential growth.
§ The mishna teaches: The residents of Jericho, whose fields were irrigated fields in a valley, reaped their crops with the approval of the Sages and arranged the crops in a pile without the approval of the Sages, but the Sages did not reprimand them. The Gemara asks: Whom did you hear who said: The Sages reprimanded them, or: They did not reprimand them? In other words, who is the tanna who, in the context of the customs of the residents of Jericho, addresses whether or not the Sages reprimanded them, as opposed to whether or not their actions were in accordance with the Sages’ will? The Gemara states: It is Rabbi Yehuda.
Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.
§ The mishna taught: And the residents of Jerusalem and of the Galilee would write the marriage contract in this manner, i.e., that if the woman is widowed, she may remain in her husband’s house and receive her sustenance from his property throughout her widowhood. Conversely, the residents of Judea would write that she may live in his house and be sustained from his estate until the heirs decide to give her the marriage contract. It was stated that the amora’im argued over this issue. Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of Judea, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of the Galilee and Jerusalem.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: A certain Elder from among the residents of Jerusalem told me that there are twenty-four types of patients afflicted with boils, and with regard to all of them the Sages said that sexual relations are harmful to them, and those afflicted with ra’atan, a severe skin disease characterized by extreme weakness and trembling, are harmed even more than all of the others. The Gemara asks: From where and how does this disease come about? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who let blood and immediately afterward engaged in sexual relations will have weak [vitaykin] children. If both of them let blood and then engaged in sexual relations, he will have children afflicted with ra’atan. Rav Pappa said in response: We said this only if he did not taste anything between bloodletting and intercourse, but if he tasted something we have no problem with it, as it is not dangerous.
It was taught in the mishna: This is because the Sages said that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, but it does not interrupt the mourning period, which continues after Shabbat. It is stated that with regard to mourning on Shabbat, there is a difference in practice between the residents of Judea and the residents of the Galilee. These say:
Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.
§ The mishna taught: And the residents of Jerusalem and of the Galilee would write the marriage contract in this manner, i.e., that if the woman is widowed, she may remain in her husband’s house and receive her sustenance from his property throughout her widowhood. Conversely, the residents of Judea would write that she may live in his house and be sustained from his estate until the heirs decide to give her the marriage contract. It was stated that the amora’im argued over this issue. Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of Judea, and Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the custom of the residents of the Galilee and Jerusalem.
Rabbi Ami would announce: Cut down the trees along the width of the full shoulders of the pullers of the boat on both sides of the river so that the trees should not interfere with the pulling of the boats. The Gemara relates: Rav Natan bar Hoshaya instructed people to cut down sixteen cubits on each side of the river, and the residents of Mashronya came upon him and beat him for issuing this directive. The Gemara explains: He holds that any pathway must be made as wide as like a public domain, which is sixteen cubits wide. But that is not so, as there, in the case of a public domain, we do require that much space; here, however, the space is necessary needs to be only enough to enable the stretching of the ropes to pull the boats. Therefore, the width of the full shoulders of the pullers is the sufficient measure of space needed in order not to interfere with the pulling of the boats.
The residents of Mata Meḥasya say: It is seized from liened property that has been sold. Their tradition is that the mishna states that the text of the stipulation is: They will take the money set aside for their mother’s marriage contract. It is as if the husband transferred this property to the sons, and as their acquisition precedes those of the other buyers, they may seize the sold property from the buyers. The Gemara concludes that the halakha is that it is not seized from liened property that has been sold, as the mishna states: They will inherit.
However, if the movable objects are not in their pure, unadulterated state, e.g., they were lost, the Sages of Pumbedita say that she takes the payment for her marriage contract from other property, as all of the husband’s property is liened to the marriage contract without an oath. The residents of Mata Meḥasya say she takes her payment only with an oath, because of a concern that she may have already received other property as payment for her marriage contract. And the halakha is that she may take it without an oath, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Pumbedita.
If he set aside land for her, which he demarcated on all four of its borders, she seizes the land without an oath. If he demarcated it on only one border, which is not as clear an indication, the Sages of Pumbedita say she takes it without an oath, and the residents of Mata Meḥasya say she takes it with an oath. And the halakha is that she takes it without an oath.
Rava reconsidered and said: Let the rams be sold only to the residents of Mavrakhta. Although the rams acquired residence, and may be moved only four cubits as they were taken beyond their Shabbat limit, the legal status of all Mavrakhta is like four cubits for them. However, they may not be sold to the residents of Meḥoza, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
The Gemara relates that Mar Yehuda once found the residents of Mavrakhta placing their eiruvin in the synagogue of Beit Agovar. He said to them: Place your eiruvfarther into the synagogue, so that more will be permitted to you, as the Shabbat limit is measured from the spot where the eiruv is deposited. Mar Yehuda holds that even when an eiruv is placed in an inhabited city, the two thousand cubits are measured from the location of the eiruv rather than from the edge of the city.
The Gemara relates that certain rams were brought to the town of Mavrakhta on Shabbat. Rava permitted the residents of Meḥoza to purchase them and take them home, although Mavrakhta was outside the Shabbat limit of Meḥoza and could be reached by the residents of Meḥoza only by way of an eiruv of Shabbat limits.
That ruling is like that which Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza: Remove the leavened bread that belongs to the members of the gentile army from your houses. Gentile soldiers would bring flour with them and force the people in the city to prepare bread on their behalf. Rava explained the rationale for his ruling: Since if the flour were stolen or if it were lost, it stands in your possession and you would be required to pay for it, its legal status is as if it were yours, and it is prohibited to keep it during Passover.
Ulla said: These mats of the residents of Meḥoza, if not for their wall, i.e., upturned edge, one would be permitted to roof a sukkawith them. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One may roof the sukkawith a mat; and if they have a wall, one may not roof a sukka with them because the upturned edge renders it a receptacle susceptible to ritual impurity.
The residents of Pum Nahara sent a question to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda. Our teacher, instruct us: Is plowing sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, or is it not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership? Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to them: Rabbi Aḥa and all of the great men of the generation say: With regard to plowing, this is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.
§ The Gemara discusses the halakha of exposure with regard to various foods and beverages. The Sages taught: Wine that is still fermenting is not subject to the halakha of exposure. And how long is its fermentation process? It is three days. Cress-based dishes are not subject to the halakha of exposure, but the residents of the Diaspora are accustomed to treating them as prohibited if they were left exposed. And we said this only in a case where the dishes do not contain vinegar; but if they do contain vinegar, the vinegar repels the snakes, and in such a situation even the inhabitants of the Diaspora do not treat them as prohibited.
The Gemara continues: Babylonian kuta?, a popular dip, is not subject to the halakha of exposure, but the residents of the Diaspora are accustomed to treating it as prohibited. Rav Menashei said: If the kuta?has indentations in it, we are concerned that they are from a snake’s fangs, and it is therefore prohibited. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Shmuel says: Dripping water is not subject to the halakha of exposure while it is being collected. Rav Ashi said: And that is the halakha only in a case where the dripping occurs one drop immediately after another drop, i.e., continuously, as the snake will not drink from it in that circumstance.
It is further related that Ravina had lent money to the residents of the fortress of Shanvata. He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to going to them now, on the intermediate days of the Festival, to collect my debt? Rav Ashi said to him: Since it is now that you will find them, whereas on other days you will not find them, as during the year these people would travel from place to place to earn their livelihood, this is treated like merchandise that will be lost, and it is therefore permitted.
The Gemara challenges: And for the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, who, after they remove their phylacteries, recite: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us to keep His laws, what does the halakha in the mishna come to exclude?
The Gemara answers: That statement applies according to the residents of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who limit the rights of a firstborn to his father’s property to the extent that they hold he does not receive a double portion of any appreciation in the property occurring after his father’s death.
The Gemara questions Rav Sheshet’s interpretation. The Master said: With regard to one who purchases a field in the name of the Exilarch, the Exilarch is not compelled to sell it to him. Since the baraita teaches only that the Exilarch is not required to provide the purchaser with documentation that the field is his, it can be understood by inference that the purchaser has nevertheless acquired the field for himself. Let us say that this interpretation of the baraitadisagrees with the statement of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, who say: And who informed the owner of the wheat that he should transfer the wheat to the customer? Since the seller assumed he was selling the field to the Exilarch, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael would hold that the sale does not take effect.
And some say: The sound of Ridya as well. Ridya is the angel tasked with irrigating the earth, who calls to the heavens and to the aquifers to provide their water. The Gemara comments: And the Sages asked for mercy so that the sound of the soul at the moment that it leaves the body would no longer be heard to that extent, and God eliminated it. In any event, clearly this baraita understands keriat hagever as the proclamation of the Temple crier, in support of the opinion of Rav.
Rabba said: I have seen this angel in charge of water, Ridya, in the form of a calf whose lips were parted, standing between the lower waters of the deep and the upper waters of the deep. To the upper waters of the deep, he said: Distill your water and let it rain. To the lower waters of the deep, he said: Let your water flow from below, as it is stated: “The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove [tur] is heard in our land” (Song of Songs 2:12). The appearance of flowers in this verse alludes to the libations, as both the blooming of flowers and pouring of these libations are annual events. The time of the singing is referring to the singing of the Festival. Finally, the term tur in Aramaic can also mean an ox; in this context, it is interpreted as a reference to the angel Ridya.
Rava asked him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if he sold it, it is sold? Rav Naḥman replied: Nevertheless, the injured party then collects it from the purchaser. The Gemara asks: Since the injured party then collects it from the purchaser, with regard to what matter is it sold? His right to collect it negates the effectiveness of the sale. The Gemara answers: It is sold for the purpose of plowing [ridya]. The purchaser may use the ox for plowing until the injured party collects it from him, and the purchaser is not required to reimburse the injured party for the use of his ox.
The Sages said: Not even a few days passed before Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma died of his illness, and all of the Roman notables went to bury him, and they eulogized him with a great eulogy. And upon their return, they found Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon, who was sitting and engaging in Torah study and convening assemblies in public, with a Torah scroll placed in his lap.
Antoninus also said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Important Romans are upsetting me; what can I do about them? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi brought him to his garden, and every day he uprooted a radish from the garden bed before him. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should kill them one by one, and do not incite all of them at once.
The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice explicitly? Why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answer in such a circumspect way, which could have been interpreted incorrectly? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to himself: If I answer openly, the important Romans might hear me and will cause me anguish. The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice quietly? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still worried that they might hear what he had said, because it is written: “Curse not the king, no, not in your thought, and curse not the rich in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air shall carry the voice” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).
The Gemara relates another incident: Aivu deposited flax with a bailee in the house of Ronya. A robber called Shabbu went and forcibly snatched the flax from him. Eventually the thief was identified and caught. The matter came before Rav Naḥman, who rendered the bailee liable. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Naḥman disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna bar Avin?
It is related that a man named Ronya had a field that was surrounded by fields belonging to Ravina on all four sides. Ravina built partitions around his fields and said to him: Give me your share of the expense in accordance with what I actually spent when I built the partitions, i.e., half the cost of the partitions. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least your share of the expense in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least the wage of a watchman. But he did not give even this to him.
Incidental to that episode, the Gemara relates another encounter between Ravina and Ronya. Ronya once bought land adjoining property belonging to Ravina. Ravina considered removing him due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. When land is up for sale, the owners of the adjoining fields have the right of first refusal. If one of the neighbors is willing to match the highest price being offered to the seller, that neighbor has the preemptive right to purchase the property, and if somebody else buys it, that buyer can be removed. Since Ravina owned the adjacent property, he thought that he enjoyed the right of first refusal. Rav Safra, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Ravina: People say: Four dinars for a large hide [tzalla], four for a small hide [tzelala]. Since Ronya also owned land bordering the desired parcel, you cannot remove him even though his plot of land is smaller than yours.
The Gemara relates another incident with regard to Ba’al-Peor. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a Jew named Sabbeta ben Alas, who rented out his donkey and his services to a certain gentile woman. He was driving his donkey behind her, and when she arrived at Peor, she said to him: Wait here until I go in and come out. After she came out, he said to her: You too wait for me until I go in and come out. She said to him: Aren’t you Jewish? Why, then, are you worshipping idols? He said to her: And what do you care? He entered and defecated before the idol, and wiped himself with its nostril, as he wanted to demean the idol as much as possible. But he was unsuccessful, as the priests of Peor were praising him and saying: No person has ever worshipped it before with this excellent form of worship. Although he intended to demean Ba’al-Peor, he actually worshipped it.
The Gemara asks: And does he not become wicked? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Do not be sure of yourself until the day you die, as Yoḥanan the High Priest served in the High Priesthood for eighty years and ultimately became a Sadducee. Even one who is outstanding in his righteousness can become a heretic.
It was stated in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in the alleyway before Shabbat. The mishna then continues with a discussion about how and whether the alleyway may be used on Shabbat. The Gemara first poses a question: A Sadducee; who mentioned his name? The mishna had thus far spoken only of a gentile, so why does Rabban Gamliel invoke an incident involving a Sadducee?
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete. It is missing an important element, and this is what it is teaching: The legal status of a Sadducee is like that of a gentile, and Rabban Gamliel says: The legal status of a Sadducee is not like that of a gentile. And Rabban Gamliel further said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in the alleyway before Shabbat, and Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it before he changes his mind and takes out his utensils, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.
The mishna relates: At the conclusion of all blessings recited in the Temple, those reciting the blessing would say: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, until everlasting [haolam], the world. But when the Sadducees strayed and declared that there is but one world and there is no World-to-Come, the Sages instituted that at the conclusion of the blessing one recites: From everlasting [haolam] to everlasting [haolam].
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were so stringent with regard to the purity of the heifer? The Gemara explains: It is since a priest who immersed that day is fit for service and may perform the ritual of the heifer after immersion, even before sunset, as we learned in a mishna: They would intentionally render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him immediately, to remove a misconception from the hearts of the Sadducees by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. As the Sadducees would say: Only by those for whom the sun set was the heifer ritual performed. The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for priests who began the purification process with immersion during that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed.
And throughout the generations as well, the High Priest withdraws seven days prior to Yom Kippur and serves one day. And two Torah scholars from among the students of Moses, to the exclusion of Sadducees, who are not students of Moses, transmit the Torah guidelines to him all seven days in order to train him in the Sanctuary service.
The Gemara returns to the description of the trial of the Sages. The Romans brought Rabbi Elazar ben Perata for his trial and said: What is the reason that you taught Torah, and what is the reason that you stole, as these were the crimes of which he was accused. Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said to them: If one is an armed robber [sayafa], he is not a scholar [safra], and if one is a scholar he is not an armed robber, i.e., I am accused of two mutually exclusive crimes; and from the fact that this characterization is not true, one may also conclude that that characterization is also not true. They asked him: But if you do not teach Torah, then what is the reason that they call you rabbi? He answered: I am the master [rabban] of weavers [tarsiyyim].
Rav Sheshet said to Rav Naḥman: Safra, your colleague, interpreted it as follows: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda is the tanna cited, and it was necessary for the verse to prohibit deriving benefit after the donkey’s death as well, as it might enter your mind to say that breaking the neck stands in place of redeeming the donkey, as it is stated: “And if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). Therefore, it could be claimed that just as redemption permits one to derive benefit from the firstborn donkey, so too, breaking the neck permits one to derive benefit from it. Therefore, the verse teaches us that breaking the neck does not permit one to derive benefit from it.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.
Ze’eira bar Ḥama, the host of the home where Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Asi, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and all the Sages of Caesarea stayed, said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Son of a lion, come, I will tell you about a wonderful custom that your father used to perform. He had a cloth that he would prepare on the day before Yom Kippur by soaking it in water and wringing it out, making it almost like a dried cloth. And the next day he wiped his face, hands, and feet with it. On the day before the Ninth of Av, on which the prohibition of bathing is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, he would soak the cloth in water and the next day pass it over his eyes.
The Sages of Caesarea, and some say that it was the judges of Caesarea, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement could be explained using a different calculation: The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is one-quarter less than the perimeter of the square,
The Gemara offers several answers to this question: David had a sign indicating when it was midnight. As Rav Aḥa bar Bizna said that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: A lyre hung over David’s bed, and once midnight arrived, the northern midnight wind would come and cause the lyre to play on its own. David would immediately rise from his bed and study Torah until the first rays of dawn. Once dawn arrived, the Sages of Israel entered to advise him with regard to the various concerns of the nation and the economy. They said to him: Our master, the king, your nation requires sustenance. He said: Go and sustain one another, provide each other with whatever is lacking. The Sages of Israel responded to him with a parable: A single handful of food does not satisfy a lion, and a pit will not be filled merely from the rain that falls directly into its mouth, but other water must be piped in (ge’onim). So too, the nation cannot sustain itself using its own resources. King David told them: Go and take up arms with the troops in battle in order to expand our borders and provide our people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood.
The Sages taught: One who sees the Sages of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His wisdom with those who revere Him. One who sees Sages of the nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood. One who sees kings of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him. One who sees kings of the other nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.
They said: And who will go and notify him that this matter requires clarification? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: I will go. They asked: And who shall go after him? They selected Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who was one of the great Sages of the generation, notwithstanding his youth. They further inquired: And who after him? Rabbi Akiva. They went and stood at the entrance of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas’s house. His maidservant entered and said to him: Rabbi, the Sages of Israel have come to you. He said to her: Let them enter, and they entered.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Over costus, a spice, one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, but over oil that was pressed with spices to absorb their scents, no, one does not recite that blessing. And Rav Kahana said: Even over oil pressed with spices, one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, but not over oil into which spices were ground. The Sages of Neharde’a say: Even over oil into which spices were ground, which is of even lower quality, one recites this blessing.
The Sages taught: One who sees the Sages of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His wisdom with those who revere Him. One who sees Sages of the nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood. One who sees kings of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him. One who sees kings of the other nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.
In a discussion related to the structure of the natural world, the Sages taught: The Jewish Sages say the celestial sphere of the zodiac is stationary, and the constellations revolve in their place within the sphere; and the sages of the nations of the world say the entire celestial sphere revolves, and the constellations are stationary within the sphere. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A refutation of their words that the entire sphere moves can be derived from the fact that we have never found the constellation of Ursa Major in the South or Scorpio in the North. This indicates that it is the stars themselves that revolve in place and not the celestial sphere as a whole, because otherwise it would be impossible for Ursa Major to remain in the North and Scorpio to remain in the South.
The Gemara presents a similar dispute: The Jewish Sages say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament and is therefore visible, and at night it travels above the firmament. And the sages of the nations of the world say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament, and at night it travels beneath the earth and around to the other side of the world. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: And the statement of the sages of the nations of the world appears to be more accurate than our statement. A proof to this is that during the day, springs that originate deep in the ground are cold, and during the night they are hot compared to the air temperature, which supports the theory that these springs are warmed by the sun as it travels beneath the earth.
§ Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav, who were sitting and saying in the name of Rav: Space without roofing renders the sukkaunfit with a measure of three handbreadths of space. However, unfit roofing renders the sukkaunfit with a measure of four handbreadths.
The Gemara asks: And does the first tanna not require sunset? It is clear that this is required. Rava said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying with regard to this issue that they disagree about whether or not to accept the principle that one’s intention is evident from his actions. And what are the circumstances of this dispute? They are, for example, a case where one was holding a vessel in his hand and running along at the time of twilight to immerse it.
Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying: Everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife’s sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. Here, however, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other in a case where there is no surplus of an additional dinar with which to fulfill the biblical laws of inheritance. And the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, i.e., they disagree whether paying a creditor of their father is a sufficient fulfillment of the biblical laws of inheritance to allow collection of the marriage contract concerning male children.
The Gemara questions the story itself: And is that so? Is it permitted under any circumstances to cover one’s genitals while bathing? Didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: Anyone who places his hands over his genitals is as if he denies the covenant of our father Abraham? It appears as if he is covering himself to obscure the fact that he is circumcised. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish and say that this, the case where it is prohibited to cover oneself, is when he is descending into the river and there are no people facing him and he need not be concerned with modesty. In that case covering oneself is prohibited as he appears to be renouncing the covenant of Abraham. That, the case where, in certain circumstances, this prohibition does not apply, is when he is emerging from the river. When he emerges, he is facing the people on the riverbank and it is then permitted to cover himself in the interest of modesty, as that which Rava would do. He would bend over when he was naked. Rabbi Zeira would stand upright, in accordance with Rav’s statement that it is prohibited to appear to be renouncing the covenant of Abraham. When the Sages of the school of Rav Ashi descended into the river they stood upright. When they emerged from the river they bent over.
The Gemara points out that this last statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna saw a certain man drinking water before he recited havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat. He said to him: Is the Master not afraid of the ailment called askara? As it was taught in the name of Rabbi Akiva that whoever tastes anything before he recites havdala, his death will come through askara. Nevertheless, the Gemara notes that the Sages of the school of Rav Ashi were not particular with regard to water. They refrained only from drinking more significant beverages before havdala.
Mar Zutra said: I observed Rav Pappi, who recited the blessing whenever he donned phylacteries. The Sages of the school of Rav Ashi recited the blessing whenever they touched the phylacteries that they were donning.
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself of Abaye’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count weeks. The Gemara notes that in fact the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi counted days and they also counted weeks. Ameimar counted days but not weeks. In explanation of his practice, Ameimar said: Since there is no longer an omer offering, the counting is performed only in commemoration of the Temple. Therefore, one does not need to be so scrupulous to count both days and weeks.
And conversely, the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi ate from the new crop only on the morning of the seventeenth. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by Torah law. Consequently, they did entertain the concern that the day they thought was the sixteenth might actually be the fifteenth of Nisan, which would mean that the new crop is permitted only the following morning.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why is the house pure when it contains a ladleful of dust from a corpse? Rabba said: I found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: The reason Rabbi Shimon deems the house pure is that it is impossible for there not to be two grains of dirt that are more than one grain of dust from the corpse, in a certain place in the mixture. And as that grain of dust from the corpse is nullified by the dirt, the amount of dust that remains is insufficient for rendering the house impure.
The Gemara wonders: Indeed, according to Rabbi Meir, another decree was added to the total. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who said that in this case the dispute still remains in place, the tally of eighteen decrees is lacking. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans [kutim] are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, their birth, they issued on that day. The halakha is that any female who sees blood of menstruation is impure, regardless of her age, even if she is a day old. The Samaritans did not accept that halakha. Consequently, it is possible that there were girls among them who saw blood of menstruation before their coming-of-age, and the Samaritans ignored their impurity. Therefore, due to this uncertainty, the Sages decreed impurity on all daughters of the Samaritans from birth.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Tarfon, who said: I will bury my son if this is not a truncated halakha, the tally of the decrees is lacking, and there are not eighteen. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The decree that the daughters of the Samaritans are considered to already have the status of menstruating women from their cradle, they issued on that day. And in the other matter of drawn water, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and thereby the tally of the decrees is complete.
The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to uphold the mishna’s ruling because it contradicts other sources, as we have already heard that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. As it was taught in the Tosefta: One who buys wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], who do not tithe their produce properly,
Ravina said: Samma bar Ḥilkai said to me that the father of bar Abuveram, and some say that it was the brother of bar Abuveram, raises a difficulty: And is blood spurting superior to the requirement of the Rabbis as an indication of life? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And the Rabbis say: It is permitted only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail?
Another verse in the same chapter states: “Now as I beheld the divine creatures, behold, one wheel [ofan] was upon the earth near the divine creatures” (Ezekiel 1:15). Rabbi Elazar said: This wheel is a certain angel who stands on the earth and its head reaches the divine creatures. It was taught in a baraita: This angel is named Sandalfon, who is taller than his colleague by a distance of five hundred years, and he stands behind the Divine Chariot and weaves crowns for his Maker. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Can crowns be woven for God? But isn’t it written: “Blessed be the Lord’s glory from His place” (Ezekiel 3:12), which proves by inference that no one knows His place? Therefore, how can crowns be woven for Him? Rather, it can be done by saying a name for the crown, and then the crown goes and sits on God’s head of its own accord.
GEMARA: With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Eina said that it is as the verse states: “With joy [sason] you shall draw water out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.
Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [sason] and happiness [simḥa], and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. Simḥa said to Sason, On the contrary, I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [simḥa] and joy [sason] for the Jews” (Esther 8:17). Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [parvanka], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [simḥa]” (Isaiah 55:12). Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [sason] you shall draw water.”
The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are all destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With sason you shall draw water.” Rabbi Abbahu said to him: If it had been written: For sason, it would have been as you say; now that it is written: With sason, it means that the skin of that man, you, will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it.
The Sages said to him: Now that Mar Ukva and his court are in the town of Kafrei, let us pose the question to them. Furthermore, they reversed the names of the respective opinions of Shmuel and Karna and sent the question before Rav. He said to the messengers in the form of an oath: By God! She requires a bill of divorce and she requires refusal. And God forbid that the seed of Abba bar Abba, i.e., Shmuel, should say such a thing, that she does not require both.
And Shmuel says that God was saying the verse: “Who is as the wise man and who knows the interpretation [pesher] of a matter?” (Ecclesiastes 8:1), referring to the greatness of Moses, who was able to forge compromises, pesharim, between God and the Jewish people. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that God was saying the verse: “Wisdom, where can it be found?” (Job 28:12). And Rav Naḥman says that God was saying the verse: “And Moses, the servant of God, died there” (Deuteronomy 34:5). Semalyon says that God was saying: And Moses, the great scribe of Israel, died there.
§ The Gemara recounts a related incident: There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you. The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said. Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar. They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves. Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew.
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says: The lower resident provides the ceiling and the upper resident provides the plaster. The Gemara asks: What is the word ceiling referring to in this context? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: Mats and beams. And the Sage Setini says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Wide wooden planks. The Gemara comments: And these two opinions do not disagree over the basic halakha; rather, this Sage rules in accordance with the custom of his locale and this Sage in accordance with the custom of his locale, and they each were describing the necessary materials for a ceiling, according to the local building conventions.
§ After citing one teaching in the name of Rav Natan bar Abba, the Gemara quotes a few more statements attributed to the same scholar. Since he is not mentioned often, Rav Natan’s teachings are arranged together, so that they can be remembered more easily. Rav Natan bar Abba said that Rav said: The wealthy Jews of Babylonia will descend to Gehenna because they do not have compassion on others. This is illustrated by incidents such as this: Shabbetai bar Marinus happened to come to Babylonia. He requested their participation in a business venture, to lend him money and receive half the profits in return, and they did not give it to him. Furthermore, when he asked them to sustain him with food, they likewise refused to sustain him.
“The wicked are estranged from the womb” (Psalms 58:4), i.e., it is clear they are estranged already in their mother’s womb. Indeed, Shabbetai the hoarder of fruits came out of her. He hoarded fruit during years of famine in order to inflate its price and profit at the expense of poor people.
It is like the ruling in this case, where Shabbtai, son of Rabbi Marinus, wrote a pledge to give his daughter-in-law a cloak [itztela] of fine wool [demileta] in her marriage contract, and he accepted upon himself the status of a guarantor for the contract. Her marriage contract was lost, and there was a disagreement between the parties as to its content. Shabbtai said to her: These matters never occurred; I never wrote that I would give you such a cloak. Witnesses then came and said: Yes, he did write her this pledge. Ultimately, he said to them: I paid it, i.e., I gave her the cloak. This case came before Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to Shabbtai: You have assumed the presumptive status of one who denies his debts with regard to that cloak. His claim was therefore not accepted, even by means of an oath.
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 another incident: Aivu deposited flax with a bailee in the house of Ronya. A robber called Shabbu went and forcibly snatched the flax from him. Eventually the thief was identified and caught. The matter came before Rav Naḥman, who rendered the bailee liable. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Naḥman disagrees with the opinion of Rav Huna bar Avin?
Avimi bar Pappi said to Rabbi Zeira: Shakud said this halakha. The Gemara asks: Who is Shakud? This is a nickname for Shmuel. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav say it? The Gemara answers: One should say that Avimi bar Pappi meant that even Shakud said it, i.e., Shmuel also agreed with this ruling. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a say as follows: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, that brothers who are sustaining their sister are entitled to her earnings. Rav Ashi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that her earnings belong to her. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata? instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.
And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burnteruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.
As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places. The Gemara cites the disputes. One, Shammai says: From a kav of dough, one is required to separate Ḥalla, the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate Ḥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating Ḥalla. And Hillel says: One must separate Ḥalla only from two kav. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the statement of that one, who is lenient. Rather, one and a half kav is the measure from which one is obligated to separate Ḥalla. Once the measures increased and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the measure from which one is obligated to separate Ḥalla. Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate Ḥalla.
They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. What is the reason that they also said in general that one must wash his hands before touching food? Abaye said: Due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who resides on hands that have not been washed in the morning.
It is taught in a baraita: They said about Shammai the Elder that all his days he would eat in honor of Shabbat. How so? If he found a choice animal, he would say: This is for Shabbat. If he subsequently found another one choicer than it, he would set aside the second for Shabbat and eat the first. He would eat the first to leave the better-quality animal for Shabbat, which continually rendered his eating an act of honoring Shabbat.
A certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name. He said to them: This is the tradition that I received from Shammai the Elder: Egg white on a bedsheet contracts and hardens when heated by fire, whereas semen is absorbed into the sheet by the fire. They checked the matter and found in accordance with his statement that the substance on the sheet was not semen but egg white. They then brought the husband to court, administered lashes to him, and made him pay his wife’s marriage contract in full.
The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.
The Gemara relates that Sha’azrak, an Arab [tayya’a] merchant, donated a candelabrum to Rav Yehuda’s synagogue. Raḥava changed its purpose before Sha’azrak’s name was forgotten as the donor, and Rava became angry at Raḥava for not waiting. Some say the opposite: Rava changed its purpose, and Raḥava became angry at Rava. And some say that the attendants of Pumbedita, the charity collectors, changed its purpose, and Raḥava became angry at them, and Rabba became angry at them as well.
The tanna’imRabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda also disagreed about this. One said: Children die due to the sin of mezuza, and one said children die due to the sin of not affixing ritual fringes. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of the one who said that children die due to the sin of mezuza, it is based on the juxtaposition of the verses, as it is written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house, and upon your gates,” and it says thereafter: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children.” However, according to the one who said that children die because of the sin of ritual fringes, what is the reason? What is the connection between these matters? Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila Mari: It is homiletically interpreted as is written: “Also in your corners is found the blood of the souls of the innocent poor” (Jeremiah 2:34). Due to one’s failure to affix ritual fringes to the corners of his garments, the innocent poor, young children, who have not had opportunity to sin, die. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: According to the one who said that children die because of the sin of mezuza, it is also derived from here, as it is written in the continuation of that verse: “You did not find them breaking in; yet for all these things.” We see that this punishment comes because they made entrances like a thief’s breach in the wall. They did not place mezuzot in their entrances.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical application of this halakha? As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, and likewise the Sage, Sheila Mari taught in a baraita: A corpse that is laid out in the sun and there is concern that it will putrefy and smell, what can be done? Two people come and sit beside it. After a while, when they feel hot from beneath them, this one brings a bed and sits on it and that one brings a bed and sits on it on either side of the corpse, as they are permitted to carry the beds for their own use. When they feel hot from above them, they bring a mat and spread it over their heads. Then, this one stands his bed up so the mat will remain resting atop it and slips away and leaves, and that one stands his bed up and slips away and leaves, and a partition is then created over the corpse as if on its own without erecting it directly for the sake of the corpse. Apparently, the Sages did not permit carrying a mat to cover a corpse for the sake of the corpse. They only permitted doing so in an indirect manner for the benefit of the living.
§ The mishna states that if they married their wives before consulting the court, the court does not remove them from the marriage. Sheila teaches a baraita that clarifies the mishna: And this is the case even if both of the brothers were priests. A woman who performed Ḥalitza is normally forbidden to a priest, yet in this case, although the brother of the other man performed Ḥalitza, they are not required to divorce. What is the reason for this halakha? It is as follows: A Ḥalutza is forbidden to a priest by rabbinic law because her status is similar to that of a divorcée, who is forbidden to a priest by Torah law. And in a case of uncertainty as to whether she is a Ḥalutza, since it may not have been her yavam who performed the ceremony, the Sages did not issue a decree.
§ According to Rav, a woman who emits blood during the eleven days of ziva due to labor pains is considered like a menstruating woman for that day, i.e., she is prohibited to her husband until she immerses in the evening. The Gemara relates that Sheila bar Avina ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara further relates that when Rav was dying, he said to Rav Asi: Go and hide this halakha, i.e., inform Sheila bar Avina that my ruling is incorrect. And if he does not listen to you, drag him [garyei] to your side with convincing claims. Rav Asi misheard and thought that Rav said to him gadyei, excommunicate him.
Rav Asi said to him, linking in a fanciful manner his own name to the various names of an important tanna: I am Isi ben Yehuda, who is Isi ben Gur Arye, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mahalalel, and this name alludes to a copper mortar [asita], over which rot has no power, i.e., no harm will befall me. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: And I am Sheila bar Avina, and my father’s name alludes to an iron pestle [bukhna], which smashes a copper mortar, i.e., harm may befall you through the merit of my ancestors.
Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9).
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says that Sheila of Kefar Temarta taught as a mnemonic: There are three baraitot, with regard to an afterbirth, a shofar, and the wall of a sukka, and there are two independent halakhot of amora’im, of the spine of a lulav and the hyssop, where the minimum measure of one handbreadth is required. The Gemara asks: Are there twohalakhot of amora’im in this list? There is only one statement, with regard to the spine of a lulav. The halakha of the hyssop is taught in a baraita by Rabbi Ḥiyya. Abaye says: Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita; rather, say that Rabbi Ḥiyya says himself that the hyssop must measure at least one handbreadth, i.e., that halakha is not taught in a baraita.
We learned that Shimon ben Shata? instituted the formula of the marriage contract for a woman and decreed impurity upon metal vessels. The Gemara asks: Aren’t metal vessels impure by Torah law, as it is written: “But the gold, and silver, and the bronze, and the iron, and the tin, and the lead. Anything that came in fire, make it pass through fire and it will be pure, but with the water of sprinkling it will be purified and anything that did not come in fire make it pass through water” (Numbers 31:22–23)? The Gemara answers: This ordinance of Shimon ben Shata? with regard to the impurity of metal vessels in general was only needed with regard to previous impurity reassumed by metal vessels after they are recast. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving Shimon ben Shata?’s sister, Shel Tziyyon the queen, who made a wedding feast for her son. All of her vessels became impure, and she broke them and gave them to the smith, and he welded the broken vessels together and made new vessels. And the Sages said: What she did was ineffective, as all the vessels will reassume their previous impurity.
What is the source for one who speaks disparagingly after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel would say: In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court does not administer the bitter water potion of a sota to a convert or an emancipated maidservant. And the Rabbis say: The court administers the bitter water potion to them. And the Rabbis said to him as proof: There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel said to the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant to drink the potion because she was like them [dugma]. And since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, he was ostracized and died while he was still under the ban of ostracism. And in accordance with the halakha with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court stoned his coffin. Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.
And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Hillel says: A full hin, twelve log, of drawn water poured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty se’adisqualifies the water of the ritual bath and accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty se’a, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one’s teacher, a person must speak employing the language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine kav of water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.
GEMARA:The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?
Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).
Rabbi Yehuda says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you and upon all the sick people of Israel. Rabbi Yosei says that it is appropriate to say: May the Omnipresent have compassion upon you among the sick people of Israel, thereby including this sick person within the community of Israel. When Shevna of Jerusalem would visit a sick person on Shabbat, upon entering, he would sayshalom. And when he exited he would say: It is Shabbat when one is prohibited to cry out, and healing is soon to come, and His compassion is abundant, and rest on Shabbat in peace. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the halakha that Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who has a sick person in his house must include him among the sick people of Israel in his prayer? In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: I myself will not cut them down, as Rav said: With regard to this palm tree that produces one kav of fruit, it is prohibited to cut it down, due to the verse: “You shall not destroy the trees” (Deuteronomy 20:19). And Rabbi Ḥanina says: My son Shikhḥat died only because he cut down a fig tree before its time. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan continued: If the Master is amenable to do so, he may cut them down, but I will not do it.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi Ḥanina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One should always live in the place where his teacher lives; thereby he will avoid sin. For as long as Shimi ben Gera, who according to tradition was a great Torah scholar and teacher of Solomon (see Gittin 59a), was alive, Solomon did not marry Pharaoh’s daughter. Immediately after the Bible relates the death of Shimi (I Kings, end of ch. 2), Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter is recorded (beginning of ch. 3).
The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Shimi bar Ashi was often found before Rav Pappa and would raise many objections against the opinions of Rav Pappa. One day Rav Shimi bar Ashi saw Rav Pappa fall on his face after prayer. He heard him say: May the Merciful One save me from the embarrassment of Shimi, and as a result Rav Shimi bar Ashi resolved to be silent and not to raise any further objections against Rav Pappa, as he saw how greatly they pained his teacher.
It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.
Shimi bar Ḥiyya, Rav’s grandson, said to Rav: People often say that a camel in Medes can dance upon a small space that holds only a single kav of produce. However, clearly that is an exaggeration, since if one would go to Medes one could demonstrate that this is a space that holds a kav, and this is a camel, and this is Medes, and yet the camel is not dancing, i.e., the truth of a statement becomes apparent when it is put to the test. So too, it would appear that you do not truly believe in your ruling because when put to the test, you are unwilling to rely on it.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who sells a city has sold with it the santar. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term santar? Here in Babylonia they interpreted it to mean the land registrar [bar maḥavanita] in charge of keeping track of property boundaries. Shimon ben Avtolemos disagrees and says that it is referring to the fields that surround the city. The Gemara comments: The one who says that santar means the land registrar understands that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, when one sells a city, all the more so are the fields that surround the city included in the sale. But the one who says that it means the fields that surround the city holds that the land registrar is not sold with the city.
Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah. The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: Its beginning consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3), and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: By inference: Under the sun is where man has no profit from his labor; however, before the sun, i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, he does have profit. Its ending consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this person. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This person is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say that Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this man, so that he will not be alone.
If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla. Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.
§ Since the baraita stated that Shimon HaTimni would deliberate before them on the ground, the Gemara now lists various standard formulations used to introduce the statements of various Sages throughout the generations. If a source says: It was learned from the Sages, the intention is that this was a statement made by the Sage Levi who sat before and learned from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If it says: They deliberated before the Sages, this is referring to Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon ben Zoma, and Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach five names for this list: Shimon ben Azzai, Shimon ben Zoma, and Shimon HaTimni, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva’ot] of gentiles that have a Jew’s wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony.
§ It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above.
The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” (Ecclesiastes 1:15)? This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance. The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people. Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.
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.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon ben Tarfon says: The verse: “The oath of the Lord shall be between them both,” teaches that when one litigant imposes an oath on the other, and he takes a false oath, the oath applies to them both, i.e., they are both held responsible for the desecration of God’s name.
Since this Sage was mentioned, the Gemara cites some of his other statements. Shimon ben Tarfon says: With regard to the prohibition of following after an adulterer, i.e., providing him with assistance in carrying out adultery, from where is it derived? The verse states: “You shall not commit adultery [lo tinaf ]” (Exodus 20:13). If the verse is vocalized slightly differently, it may be read: You shall not cause adultery [lo tanif ].
Commenting on the verse describing the response of the Jewish people to the spies’ slander of Eretz Yisrael: “And you murmured [vatteragenu] in your tents and said: Because the Lord hated us, He has brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us” (Deuteronomy 1:27), Shimon ben Tarfon says: “Teragenu” is interpreted as though it is composed of two Hebrew expressions: You explored [tartem] the land, and: You disparaged [ginnitem] it, in the tent of the Omnipresent.
Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah. The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: Its beginning consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3), and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: By inference: Under the sun is where man has no profit from his labor; however, before the sun, i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, he does have profit. Its ending consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this person. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This person is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say that Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this man, so that he will not be alone.
The baraita continues: I have derived only that one is prohibited from eating this ox; from where do I derive that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from it as well? The verse states: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear [naki].” The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that one may not benefit from this ox? Shimon ben Zoma says: This is like a person who says to his fellow: So-and-so was left clear [naki] of his property, and he has no benefit from it at all. Similarly, “But the owner of the ox shall be clear” means that he has no benefit from the ox.
If a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a student of Torah, one does not say that he must be a student who is scholarly like Shimon ben Azzai or like Shimon ben Zoma, who were called students despite their great knowledge, as they were never ordained. Rather, it means anyone who, when he is asked one matter in any topic of his studies, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned, and this suffices even if his statement was in the tractate of Kalla. Similarly, if a man says to a woman: Be betrothed to me on the condition that I am a scholar, one does not say that he must be like the scholars of Yavne, like Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. Rather, it is referring to anyone who, when he is asked about a matter of wisdom on any topic related to the Torah, responds appropriately and can say what he has learned.
§ The Sages taught: At the time of the passing of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said: I need my sons. His sons entered his room. He said to them as a last will and testament: Be careful with the honor of your mother. He said further: My lamp should be lit in its usual place, my table should be set in its usual place, and the bed should be arranged in its usual place. Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati; they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death.
The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati, they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death. It was understood from this statement that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was speaking of this world, that these two should serve him in his death and administer his burial. However, when they saw that their biers preceded his bier, i.e., they died before him, they said: Conclude from here that he was speaking of that world. They will attend to him in the World-to-Come.
The Gemara answers: This Sage does not interpret the word “et” as a means to derive new halakhot. He considers the word “et” to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition. As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God?
As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmasoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of the word “et” that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I received reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.
As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every occurrence of the word “et” in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall fear the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “et,” he withdrew from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all the occurrences of “et” that you interpreted until now? Shimon HaAmasoni said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition.
As it was taught in a baraita: Shimon HaAmmassoni, and some say that it was Neḥemya HaAmmassoni, would interpret all occurrences of the word et in the Torah, deriving additional halakhot with regard to the particular subject matter. Once he reached the verse: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God; you shall serve Him; and to Him you shall cleave, and by His name you shall swear” (Deuteronomy 10:20), he withdrew from this method of exposition, as how could one add to God Himself? His students said to him: Rabbi, what will be with all the etim that you interpreted until now? He said to them: Just as I received reward for the interpretation, so I shall receive reward for my withdrawal from using this method of exposition. The word et in this verse was not explained until Rabbi Akiva came and expounded: “You shall be in awe of [et] the Lord your God”: The word et comes to include Torah scholars, and one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any case, Shimon HaAmmassoni no longer derived additional halakhot from the word et.
In light of the previous mention of the blessing of the heretics, the Gemara explains how this blessing was instituted: The Sages taught: Shimon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen blessings, already extant during the period of the Great Assembly, before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, in order in Yavne. Due to prevailing circumstances, there was a need to institute a new blessing directed against the heretics. Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who knows to institute the blessing of the heretics, a blessing directed against the Sadducees? Shmuel HaKatan, who was one of the most pious men of that generation, stood and instituted it.
§ The baraita cited previously taught that the halakha against reciting a text out of order applies to the Amidaprayer as well. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen blessings of the Amida prayer before Rabban Gamliel in their fixed order in Yavne, which indicates that there is a specific order to these blessings that must not be changed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: A hundred and twenty Elders, i.e., the Men of the Great Assembly, and among them several prophets, established the eighteen blessings of the Amidain their fixed order, which also shows that the order of these blessings may not be changed.
The Gemara returns to the baraita cited at the beginning of the discussion: Now, since the baraita teaches that a hundred and twenty Elders, including many prophets, established theAmidaprayer in its fixed order, what is it that Shimon HaPakuli arranged in a much later period of time, as related by Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the blessings of the Amida prayer were originally arranged by the hundred and twenty members of the Great Assembly, but over the course of time the people forgot them, and Shimon HaPakuli then arranged them again.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Ḥideka said: Shimon HaShikmoni was my colleague among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and so would Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni say: Even before turning to God for guidance, Moses our teacher knew that the daughters of Zelophehad were inheritors and that they were entitled to their father’s portion, as well as his share in Hepher’s portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepher’s portion or not.
that the offspring, even if not a mamzer, has flawed lineage and, if the offspring is a girl, is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara clarifies: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is not a mamzer, nevertheless, granted that Shimon HaTimni holds that he is not a mamzer; he would agree, however, that he is of flawed lineage.
The Gemara clarifies: Who is included by saying: All agree? It is Shimon HaTimni, as although Shimon HaTimni said that the offspring of relations for which one is liable for violating a prohibition is not a mamzer, this applies only
MISHNA:Which offspring of forbidden relations have the status of a mamzer? It is the offspring of a union with any next of kin that is subject to a Torah prohibition that he should not engage in sexual relations with them; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Shimon HaTimni says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive karet at the hand of Heaven. And the halakha is in accordance with his statement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is the offspring of a union with any forbidden relation for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.
But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that is a reference to the Second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which over three hundred High Priests served. In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, deduct from the figure of four hundred and twenty years forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty years that Yoḥanan the High Priest served, ten years that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven years that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, go out and calculate from this point forward and conclude: Each and every one of the remaining High Priests did not complete his year in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.
§ The Sages taught: During all forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served as High Priest, the lot for God arose in the right hand. From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right hand and sometimes it arose in the left hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, the strip of crimson wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel turned white, indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). From then onward, it sometimes turned white and sometimes it did not turn white. Furthermore, the western lamp of the candelabrum would burn continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. From then onward, it sometimes burned and sometimes it went out.
§ The Sages taught: During the year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said to them, his associates: In this year, he will die, euphemistically referring to himself. They said to him: How do you know? He said to them: In previous years, on every Yom Kippur, upon entering the Holy of Holies, I was met, in a prophetic vision, by an old man who was dressed in white, and his head was wrapped up in white, and he would enter the Holy of Holies with me, and he would leave with me. But today, I was met by an old man who was dressed in black, and his head was wrapped up in black, and he entered the Holy of Holies with me, but he did not leave with me. He understood this to be a sign that his death was impending. Indeed, after the festival of Sukkot, he was ill for seven days and died.
Rather, Rav Huna said: There is a certain tree in the cities on the sea shore, and Ḥanun is its name. Those tending to the animal bring a wood chip from the tree and place it in the animal’s nose so that it will sneeze and the worms on its head will fall. The Gemara asks: If so, not only ewes but also rams should be given this treatment. The Gemara answers: Since the rams butt heads with each other, the worms fall in any event. Shimon the Nazirite said:Ḥanunot is referring to animals into whose nose the chip of a broom tree would be placed.
that they will say a matter of halakha in my name in this world when I have passed on to another world. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to any Torah scholar in whose name a matter of halakha is said in this world, his lips mouth the words in the grave, as though he is talking. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ze’eira said, and some say this was stated by Shimon the Nazirite: What is the verse from which it is derived? “And the roof of your mouth is like the best wine that glides down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep” (Song of Songs 7:10).
The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s lenient ruling: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Shimon the Timnite, who did not come on the night of the Festival to the study hall. In the morning, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava found him and said to him: Why did you not come last night to the study hall? He said to him: A military unit on a search mission [balleshet] came to our city and wanted to pillage the entire city. We slaughtered a calf in order to placate them, and we fed them with it and had them depart in peace.
For the following calamities they cry out even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by gentile troops, or for a place in danger of being flooded by a river that has swelled its banks, or for a ship tossed about at sea. Rabbi Yosei said: One may cry out on Shabbat to summon help, but it may not be sounded for crying out to God. Shimon the Timnite says: One may cry out on Shabbat even for pestilence, but the Rabbis did not agree with him.
§ The mishna taught that Shimon the Timnite says: One may cry out on Shabbat even for pestilence, but the Rabbis did not agree with him. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the Rabbis did not agree with him with regard to crying out in these cases on Shabbat, but if they occur on a weekday they agreed with him? Or perhaps they did not agree with him at all, as they maintain that one never cries out over pestilence.
The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥanan of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah.
Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose level of sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose level of sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.
§ The mishna teaches: Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana. It is reasonable to rule in accordance with your opinion, as a radish ultimately hardens if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground. In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft radish in mind. However, people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.
Rather, what is the meaning of Rav Sheshet’s formulation: And extends up to ten? Apparently, up to ten handbreadths is that which is within the parameters of a karmelit, and above ten handbreadths is not a karmelit. And as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Keen scholar [shinnana], do not be involved with questions in the matters of Shabbat above ten handbreadths. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to what halakha and in the context of what issue did Shmuel make this statement? If you say his intention was that there is no private domain above ten handbreadths, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: One who stuck a stick in the ground of the private domain and threw an object from the public domain and it landed atop it, even if the stick was a hundred cubits high, he is liable, since the private domain extends up to the sky? Apparently, there is a private domain even above ten handbreadths.
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, your opinion is reasonable, as a radish will eventually harden, and yet we recite over it the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: My son Shivḥat did not die for any reason other than that he cut down a fig tree before its time. Ravina says: But if the lumber was greater in monetary value than its fruits, it is permitted to chop it down, and this does not violate the prohibition against destroying a tree.
They said about Shammai the Elder that he did not want to feed his children with one hand, to avoid having to wash it. This prevented the children from eating during all of Yom Kippur. Due to concerns about the health and the suffering of his children, they decreed that he must feed them with two hands, forcing him to wash both hands. What is the reason that they also said in general that one must wash his hands before touching food? Abaye said: Due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who resides on hands that have not been washed in the morning.
Another custom of Rav Huna was that when he had a new medicine, he would fill a water jug with the medicine and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take from this new medicine. And there are those who say: He had a remedy against the demon Shivta that he knew by tradition, that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. And to this end, he would place a water jug and hang it by the door, saying: Anyone who needs, let him come to the house and wash his hands, so that he will not be in danger.
Abaye said: The reason for the washing there is not on account of the food specifically. Rather, it is due to an evil spirit named Shivta, who contaminates hands that have not been washed in the morning. As long as one washes his hands in the morning, perhaps he need not wash them again to feed another.
The Gemara returns to explain the mishna, in which we learned that Rabban Gamliel says: One may recite Shema until dawn. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.
The Gemara answers that the scenario was different. Rather, Hezekiah erred with regard to the halakhic opinion ascribed in later generations to Shmuel, as Shmuel said: One may not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is fit to establish it as the New Moon of Nisan. On the thirtieth day of each month, those who witnessed the new moon would come and testify before the court, which, based on their testimony, would declare that day the first day of the next month. Therefore, one may not declare a leap year on the thirtieth day of Adar, as it could potentially become the first of Nisan. Therefore, the Sages of Hezekiah’s generation did not agree with his decision to intercalate the year on the thirtieth of Adar. Hezekiah held that we do not say: Since that day is fit to establish it as the New Moon is reason enough to refrain from intercalation of the year.
Rav and Shmuel argued over the meaning of small chamber. One of them said: They had an uncovered second story on their roof, over which they built a ceiling; and one of them said: There was an enclosed veranda [akhsadra] and they divided it in half.
The Gemara asks: Shall we say based on this statement that Rav Sheshet disagrees with the statement of Rav Asi, who holds that a craftsman acquires ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, and his payment is not considered to be a wage? Shmuel bar Aḥa said: Rav Sheshet is discussing a specific type of contractor, and he stated his ruling with regard to an agent tasked with the delivery of a letter, in which case, since the contractor’s only task is to deliver the letter, there is no enhancement through which he might acquire ownership rights. Consequently the prohibition against delaying the payment of wages applies.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel bar Marta says: With regard to a pit that is eight handbreadths deep and two handbreadths of it contain water, one is liable for it. What is the reason? Each handbreadth of water is like two handbreadths of dry space. Therefore, the pit is effectively ten handbreadths in depth and contains a sufficient quantity of lethal fumes to render its owner liable.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to libations that are brought by themselves, without an animal offering, do they require song on the part of the Levites as the libations are poured on the altar, or do they not require song? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Should it be assumed that since Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived that one recites a song of praise in the Temple only over wine, it can be inferred that we recite songs whenever wine is poured on the altar? Or perhaps we recite songs only upon the eating and drinking of the altar, i.e., when both an animal offering is burnt and a libation is also poured upon the altar, but upon the drinking of the altar alone, we do not recite songs.
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Agil went to him and asked him. Rabbi Tanḥum said to him: I did not hear anything on this matter from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself. But this is what Shmuel bar Naḥum, the brother of the mother of Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said to me, and some say it was the father of the mother of Rav Aḥai, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: It does not mention the word good in the first tablets, since they were ultimately destined to be broken after the Jews made the Golden Calf.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: One who transgressed and left his pot on the fire on Shabbat, what is his legal status? Did the Sages penalize him and prohibit him from eating the food, or did they not penalize him? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: When Rabbi Yosei went to the city of Tzippori, he found hot water that was left on the stove, and he did not prohibit them from drinking it. He found eggs shriveled from overcooking that were left on the stove on Shabbat and he prohibited them from eating them. Is this not referring to permitting and prohibiting their consumption for that same Shabbat? If so, apparently he prohibits eating cooked food that was intentionally left on the stove on Shabbat. The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: No. Rather, he prohibited them from doing so ab initiothe following Shabbat, but he did not prohibit them from eating the eggs on that same Shabbat.
Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: This is an incorrect definition, as the total amount of oil in these loaves or wafers is only a quarter-log, and as this small amount of oil is divided between several loaves, it is nullified in the mixture. Consequently, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s wafers are not matza ashira.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that this payment is not prohibited? Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: Actually, the mishna is not employing a euphemism, and the master meant: My slave. And as for the difficulty that a maidservant is permitted to a slave, when the mishna teaches this case it is referring to a Hebrew slave, which is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules that the payment is permitted.
Shmuel bar Unya says in the name of Rav: Torah study is greater than the sacrificing of the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have now come,” demonstrating that the neglect of Torah study is a more serious offense than the neglect of the daily offerings.
And if Rabbi Ami was dismayed because Rabbi Yehuda Nesia drank water heated by a gentile cook [kapeila], didn’t Shmuel bar Yitzḥak say that Rav said: With regard to anything that is eaten raw, like water, even if it was cooked by a gentile, it is not subject to the prohibition against eating food cooked by gentiles? The Gemara resolves both difficulties: An important person is different, and Rabbi Ami believed that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia should have been more stringent.
In light of the previous mention of the blessing of the heretics, the Gemara explains how this blessing was instituted: The Sages taught: Shimon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen blessings, already extant during the period of the Great Assembly, before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, in order in Yavne. Due to prevailing circumstances, there was a need to institute a new blessing directed against the heretics. Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who knows to institute the blessing of the heretics, a blessing directed against the Sadducees? Shmuel HaKatan, who was one of the most pious men of that generation, stood and instituted it.
The Gemara answers: The case of Shmuel HaKatan is different, as he began reciting the blessing of the heretics and while reciting it he became confused and forgot the end of the blessing. Consequently, he was not suspected of heretical leanings. Indeed, Rav Yehuda said that Rav, and some say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said: They only taught that one who errs while reciting the blessing of the heretics is removed in a case where he did not begin reciting it. But if he began reciting it, then we allow him to collect his thoughts and finish reciting it.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the appointed time? Shmuel the elder, father-in-law of Rabbi Ḥanina, said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: It means from when the daily offering is slaughtered until when its blood is sprinkled. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It means precisely until noon.
The same verse continues: “And he knew her [leda’atah] again no more [velo yasaf],” seemingly indicating that Judah did not engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar again. Shmuel the Elder, father-in-law of Rav Shmuel bar Ami, says in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Ami: The verse actually means that once he knew of her that her intentions were for the sake of Heaven, he did not desist from engaging in sexual intercourse with her again, as it is written here: “Velo yasaf od leda’atah,” and it is written there at the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice and it went on no more [velo yasaf]” (Deuteronomy 5:18), which is interpreted to mean: A great voice that did not cease.
§ The Gemara relates: Shmuel Yarḥina’a was the physician of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi felt a pain in his eye. Shmuel said to him: I will place a medication in your eye. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I cannot have the medication placed directly in my eye, as I am afraid it will cause me too much pain. Shmuel said to him: I will apply a salve above your eye, not directly in it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Even that I cannot bear. Shmuel placed the medication in a tube of herbs beneath his pillow, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was healed.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi made efforts to ordain Shmuel Yarḥina’a as a rabbi but was unsuccessful, as Shmuel always demurred. Shmuel Yarḥina’a said to him: The Master should not be upset about my refusal, as I know that I am not destined to be ordained as a rabbi. I myself saw the book of Adam the first man, which contains the genealogy of the human race, and it is written in it that Shmuel Yarḥina’a
The Sages sent a message from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, that a karkoz goat is an undomesticated animal and its fat is permitted; but nevertheless, be mindful of the honor of our teacher Aḥai who deems it forbidden, and do not partake of the fat in his presence, as he enlightens the eyes of the exile.
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as it is told: They would deposit the money of orphans with Shmuel’s father for safekeeping. When Shmuel’s father died, Shmuel was not with him, and did not learn from him the location of the money. Since he did not return it, Shmuel was called: Son of him who consumes the money of orphans. Shmuel went after his father to the cemetery and said to the dead: I want Abba. The dead said to him: There are many Abbas here. He told them: I want Abba bar Abba. They said to him: There are also many people named Abba bar Abba here. He told them: I want Abba bar Abba, the father of Shmuel. Where is he? They replied: Ascend to the yeshiva on high. Meanwhile, he saw his friend Levi sitting outside the yeshiva, away from the rest of the deceased. He asked him: Why do you sit outside? Why did you not ascend to the yeshiva? He replied: Because they tell me that for all those years that you didn’t enter the yeshiva of Rabbi Afes, and thereby upset him, we will not grant you entry to the yeshiva on high.
With regard to prayer while traveling, the Gemara relates: When Shmuel’s father and Levi wanted to set out on a journey in the morning, they would pray early before sunrise. When, during their journey, the time to recite Shema would arrive, they recited it.
In similar circumstances, Rav Ashi would pray with the congregation individually while seated, so that they would not notice that he was praying. Afterwards, when he would come to his house, he would pray again while standing in order to pray without distraction. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Mareimar and Mar Zutra do, i.e., gather a prayer quorum at home to pray before the lecture. He said to them: It is burdensome to me to delay the lecture so much. The Sages said to him: The Master should do as Shmuel’s father and Levi did and pray before sunrise. He said to them: I have not seen Sages older than us do that, indicating that this is not the accepted halakha.
And with regard to the prohibition against making the husband’s bed, Rava said: We said this only if she made the bed in front of him, but if it was not in front of him, we have no problem with it. With regard to the prohibition against pouring his cup, the Gemara comments: Shmuel’s wife would change her practice toward him during her menstruation period and pour with her left hand, since if she made some change in the manner of pouring, this would serve as a reminder of her status and mitigate the concern that it might lead to intimacy. Abaye’s wife would place his cup on top of a barrel, Rava’s wife would place it on his pillow, and Rav Pappa’s wife would place it on the bench to create a change.
The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Zeira: Every thirty days, he would examine himself to ascertain if he remained on his exalted level. He would ignite an oven, climb in, and sit inside it, and the fire would not affect him. One day, the Sages gave him the evil eye, i.e., they were envious of him, and his legs became singed in the fire. And from then on they referred to him as: The short one with singed legs.
MISHNA: The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.
GEMARA: The Gemara challenges the mishna’s assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: Now if in the time that people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii stealing land, is it possible that from the time that people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii?
Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is saying that in the time that people were being killed in the war they did not apply the law of Sicarii, but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what Rabbi Asi said: The gentile authorities issued three decrees during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The first decree was that anyone who does not kill a Jew should himself be killed. The second decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should pay four dinars as a fine. The last decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should himself be killed. Therefore, during the time of the first and second decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, since the gentile would kill Jews, then the owner of the field, owing to the danger posed to his life, would fully transfer ownership of his field to the Sicarius.
§ The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:16): If a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, or the slave was taken by a Sicarius, i.e., one who would use violence and intimidation to force people to give them their property, then he is not emancipated. The Gemara asks: And is it so that if a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, the Sages did not institute a penalty and the slave is not emancipated?
MISHNA: The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.
Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself. But if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else.
MISHNA: The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.
The Gemara asks: What is this teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (Gittin 55b): If one purchased land from a Sicarius [Sikarikon], a violent gentile who had extorted the field from its owner with threats, and afterward one returned and purchased the same field from the prior owner, his purchase is void, as the owner of the field can say that he did not actually intend to sell him the field. This teaches that a purchase following a robbery is invalid, despite the existence of documents or testimony, rendering the statement of Rav Huna superfluous.
Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [sason] and happiness [simḥa], and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. Simḥa said to Sason, On the contrary, I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [simḥa] and joy [sason] for the Jews” (Esther 8:17). Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [parvanka], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [simḥa]” (Isaiah 55:12). Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [sason] you shall draw water.”
§ The Gemara returns to its explanation of the Megilla. The verse states: “The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor” (Esther 8:16). Rav Yehuda said: “Light”; this is referring to the Torah that they once again studied. And similarly it says: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). “Gladness” [simḥa]; this is referring to the Festivals that they once again observed. And similarly it says: “And you shall be glad [vesamakhta] on your Festival” (Deuteronomy 16:14). “Joy” [sasson]; this is referring to circumcision, as they once again circumcised their sons. And similarly it says: “I rejoice [sas] at Your word” (Psalms 119:162), which the Sages understood as referring to David’s rejoicing over the mitzva of circumcision.
Rather than answering Shmuel’s question directly, Rav first rejects his proof: Rav said to him: Was it Rabbi Simlai of Lod of whom you spoke? Residents of Lod are different, as they disparage the Sages’ decrees, and therefore Rabbi Simlai’s testimony is unreliable. Shmuel said to him: Shall I send for him? As a result, Rav became embarrassed.
The Gemara relates: The sister of Rami bar Pappa was married to Rav Avya. When she died Rav Avya performed the practice of standing and sitting for her. Rav Yosef said: He erred in two matters. He erred, as the ceremony is to be performed only with the participation of close family members, and he performed it even with a distant relative. And he erred again, as mourners should perform this ceremony only on the first day of mourning, the day of the burial, and he performed it on the second day.
The sister of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a tract of land in an orchard. Whenever she was sick and thought that she was dying, she would transfer ownership of the orchard to Rav Dimi,
The sister of Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana wrote a deed in the morning granting her property to Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana. In the evening another brother, Rav Aḥadvoi bar Rav Mattana, came and cried to her. Rav Aḥadvoi said to her: Now people will say that you gave your property to Rav Tovi because this Master, Rav Tovi, is a Torah scholar, and that Master, Rav Aḥadvoi, is not a Torah scholar. She wrote a deed granting the property to him. Rav Tovi came before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Tovi: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift, and therefore the property belongs to Rav Aḥadvoi.
The Gemara relates that the gentile slave of Rabbi Levi would sell Ḥiltit, and it was permitted to purchase it from him as he was the slave of a Sage. When Rabbi Levi passed away, they came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: Now that Rabbi Levi has passed, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is permitted to purchaseḤiltitfrom his gentile slave? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: The slave of a Ḥaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, is as a Ḥaver himself, and therefore it is permitted to buy Ḥiltit from him.
The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that others do not judge the kings of Israel? It is because of an incident that happened, as the slave of Yannai the king killed a person. Shimon ben Shata? said to the Sages: Put your eyes on him and let us judge him. They sent word to Yannai: Your slave killed a person. Yannai sent the slave to them. They sent word to Yannai: You also come here, as the verse states with regard to an ox that gored a person to death: “He should be testified against with his owner” (Exodus 21:29). The Torah stated: The owner of the ox should come and stand over his ox.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world.
It was further related that the son of Ameimar’s son died, and Ameimar rent his garment over him. His son came before him, and he rent his garments again in the presence of his son, as an expression of empathy with his son’s pain and grief. Later, he remembered that when he rent his garments in his son’s presence he rent them while sitting, and therefore he stood up and rent his garment again while standing.
The Gemara relates another incident involving Bonyas and his wealth: The son of Bonyas came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Realizing from his visitor’s clothing that he was dealing with a wealthy individual, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his attendants: Make way for one who possesses one hundred maneh, i.e., one hundred times one hundred zuz, as one of this status deserves to be honored in accordance with his riches. Later, another person came before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once again turned to his attendants and said to them:
Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav, his sister’s son: Son of great men, didn’t I tell you that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is involved in this tractate do not ask him questions in another tractate, as perhaps it will not be on his mind and he will be unable to answer? The dilemma that Rav asked was not related to the subject matter of the tractate which they were studying. As, had it not been for the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a great man, you would have shamed him, as he would have been forced to give you an answer that is not an appropriate answer.
Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.
“And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he laid hold on Jeremiah the prophet, saying: You shall fall to the Chaldeans. Then Jeremiah said: It is false; I shall not fall to the Chaldeans” (Jeremiah 37:13–14). And it is then written: “So Irijah laid hold on Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes” (Jeremiah 37:14). Irijah was the grandson of Hananiah, and Jeremiah was punished by falling into his hands because he had flattered his grandfather.
And Ulla said: It is better that a person should be served by one who studies four orders of the Mishna, and he should not allow himself to be served by one who teaches to others four orders of the Mishna, as in that case of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road when he reached a deep puddle of water. A certain man came and placed him upon his shoulders and began transferring him to the other side. Reish Lakish said to him: Have you read the Bible? He said to him: I have read it. He then asked: Have you studied the Mishna? He answered him: I have studied four orders of the Mishna. Reish Lakish then said to him: You have hewn these four mountains and yet you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? It is inappropriate for you to carry me; throw the son of Lakish into the water.
Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥanan would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraitathat supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraitathat supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not.
Rabbi Yoḥanan went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? Rabbi Yoḥanan screamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e., he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, and Rabbi Yoḥanan died.
Rabbi Ḥanina said to his students who heard all this: Go and tell the son of Leiva’i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: It is not the constellation of the day of the week that determines a person’s nature; rather, it is the constellation of the hour that determines his nature. One who was born under the influence of the sun will be a radiant person; he will eat from his own resources and drink from his own resources, and his secrets will be exposed. If he steals he will not succeed, because he will be like the sun that shines and is revealed to all. One who was born under the influence of Venus will be a rich and promiscuous person. What is the reason for this? Because fire was born during the hour of Venus, he will be subject the fire of the evil inclination, which burns perpetually. One who was born under the influence of Mercury will be an enlightened and expert man, because Mercury is the sun’s scribe, as it is closest to the sun. One who was born under the influence of the moon will be a man who suffers pains, who builds and destroys, and destroys and builds. He will be a man who eats not from his own resources and drinks not from his own resources, and whose secrets are hidden. If he steals he will succeed, as he is like the moon that constantly changes form, whose light is not its own, and who is at times exposed and at times hidden. One who was born under the influence of Saturn will be a man whose thoughts are for naught. And some say that everything that others think about him and plan to do to him is for naught. One who was born under the influence of Jupiter [tzedek] will be a just person [tzadkan]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And just in this context means just in the performance of mitzvot. One who was born under the influence of Mars will be one who spills blood. Rav Ashi said: He will be either a blood letter, or a thief, or a slaughterer of animals, or a circumciser. Rabba said: I was born under the influence of Mars and I do not perform any of those activities. Abaye said: My Master also punishes and kills as a judge.
The Gemara cites another riddle: You and I are cousins; your father and I are cousins; your mother and I are cousins. You find the solution to this riddle in a permitted manner as well. For example, Reuven, who has two daughters, and his brother Shimon came and married one of them, and the son of Levi, the third brother, came and married the other one of them. And the son of Shimon says this statement to the grandson of Levi. They are cousins from their mothers’ sides, Shimon’s son and Levi’s son are cousins from their fathers’ sides, and Shimon’s son and the mother of Levi’s grandson are cousins from their fathers’ sides.
The Angel of Death grabbed him by the corner of his cloak. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: I swear that I will not come with you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If he ever in his life requested dissolution concerning an oath he had taken, he must return to this world with the Angel of Death, as he can have his oath dissolved this time also. If he did not ever request dissolution of an oath, he need not return. Since Rabbi Yehoshua had in fact never requested dissolution of an oath, he was allowed to stay in paradise. The Angel of Death said to him: At least give me my knife back. However, he did not give it to him, as he did not want any more people to die. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Give it to him, as it is necessary to kill the created beings; death is the way of the world. Elijah the Prophet announced before him: Make way for the son of Levi, make way for the son of Levi.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went and found in paradise Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai sitting on thirteen golden stools [takhtekei]. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: Are you the son of Levi? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Was a rainbow ever seen in your days? He said: Yes. Rabbi Shimon retorted: If so, you are not the son of Levi, as he is a completely righteous man. During the lifetimes of completely righteous people no rainbows are visible, as they are a sign that the world deserves to be destroyed by a flood; whereas the merit of the righteous protects the world from such things. The Gemara comments: And that is not so, for there was no rainbow seen at all during the lifetime of Rabbi Yehoshua, but he thought: I do not want to take credit for myself by presenting myself as such a righteous person.
It is related that the son of Mar Ukva’s father-in-law, i.e., Mar Ukva’s brother-in-law, died, and Mar Ukva thought to sit in mourning over him for the seven- and thirty-day periods of mourning. Rav Huna went into his house, found him observing the rites of mourning, and said to him: Do you desire to eat mourners’ food [tzudaniyyata]? The Sages said that one should observe mourning in honor of his wife only when she is in mourning over the death of his father-in-law or his mother-in-law.
One of the Sages taught: And these young priests who held the pitchers were superior in strength to the son of Marta, daughter of Baitos, who was a priest renowned for his might. They said about the son of Marta, daughter of Baitos, that he would take two thighs of a large bull that was so large that it would be purchased for one thousand zuz, and walk up the ramp in small steps, heel to toe, without hurrying, due to his strength. However, his brethren the priests would not allow him do so, due to the principle: “In the multitude of people is the King’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28). The more priests engaged in the Temple service, the greater glory for God. Therefore, it is preferable for the thighs to be carried to the altar by multiple priests.
§ The Gemara relates: The son of Master Shmuel commanded his workers that they give thirteen thousand dinars to Rava from the crop [alalta] produced in his fields on the banks of the Panya River. Rava sent this question before Rav Yosef: What is called alalta; what crops are included in the category of alalta? Rav Yosef said: It is as it is taught in the baraita cited above: And they agree with regard to one who vows that tevua is forbidden to him that it is prohibited for him to eat from only the five species of grain; just as tevua includes only the five species, so too alalta includes only the five species. Abaye said to him: Are the two cases comparable? Although tevua means grain and includes only the five species, alalta means crop and includes all items that grow.
The Gemara continues discussing the greatness of Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Zeira said: Last night, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, appeared to me in a dream. I said to him: Near whom are you placed in the upper realms? He said to me: Near Rabbi Yoḥanan. I asked: And Rabbi Yoḥanan is near whom? He replied: Near Rabbi Yannai. And Rabbi Yannai is near whom? Near Rabbi Ḥanina. And Rabbi Ḥanina is near whom? Near Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Zeira added: I said to Rabbi Yosei: But isn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan worthy of being placed near Rabbi Ḥiyya? He said to me: In a place of fiery sparks and burning fires, who can bring Rabbi Yoḥanan, son of Nappaḥa, there?
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
The Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Setada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda says: Perhaps his mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Setada, but his mother’s paramour, who fathered this mamzer, was named Pandeira. The Gemara challenges: But his mother’s husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, not Setada. Rather, perhaps his mother was named Setada, and he was named ben Setada after her. The Gemara challenges: But his mother was Miriam, who braided women’s hair. The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction; Setada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
After Rabbi Elazar left, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was impressed with Rabbi Elazar’s exposition, said to Reish Lakish: I saw that Rabbi Elazar, son of Pedat, was sitting and expounding the Torah as Moses had received it directly from the mouth of the Almighty. Reish Lakish said to him: Was this exposition his own? It is a baraita. Rabbi Yoḥanan inquired: Where is thisbaraitataught? Reish Lakish replied: It is in Torat Kohanim, otherwise known as Sifra, a work of halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. Rabbi Yoḥanan went out and learned the entire Torat Kohanimin three days, and reached a full understanding of it in three months.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva’ot] of gentiles that have a Jew’s wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony.
§ It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above.
MISHNA:Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [itlis] in Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of the son of Rabban Gamliel: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all three prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the prohibitions?
The Gemara relates a story with regard to a Sage who interpreted dreams, Rabbi Yishmael. Ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, asked his uncle, Rabbi Yishmael: I saw in a dream that my two cheeks fell off. What does my dream mean? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Two Roman battalions spoke ill of you, and they died. Cheeks symbolize a mouth that speaks evil.
The Gemara relates: Rav was the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half brother and the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half sister, as Ayevu, Rav’s father, married his own stepsister, Imma. When Rav ascended there, to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Is your father, Ayevu, alive? He said to him, replying with a question: Is your sister, Imma, alive? He said to him: Indeed, is Imma alive? He said to him: Is Ayevu alive? Upon hearing this, Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that both Ayevu and Imma had passed away, and Rav did not wish to say so explicitly.
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that this is Rabbi Aḥiyya’s opinion? But Rav was the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother and also the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sister, for Rav’s father, Aivu, was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s paternal half brother, and Rav’s mother was Rabbi Ḥiyya’s maternal half sister. When Rav went there, Eretz Yisrael, his uncle Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Is your father, Aivu, still alive?
Rava said to him: This is an individual opinion, and we do not hold in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the father of Rabbi Tzadok died in the city of Ginzak, and they informed him of his father’s passing only after three years. He came and asked Elisha ben Avuya and the Elders with him what he should do. And Elisha ben Avuya said to him: Observe the rites of mourning for seven and thirty days. And when the son of Rabbi Aḥiyya died in the Diaspora, and Rabbi Aḥiyya was informed about his passing a long time afterward, he sat in mourning for seven and thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that this opinion was held only by a few individual Sages, but it was not generally accepted.
The baraita continues: Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s eyes streamed with tears, and he said: Happy are you, Torah scholars, for whom matters of Torah are exceedingly dear. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua recited this verse about Yosef the Babylonian: “O how I love Your Torah; it is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 119:97). He continued: Because Rabbi Yehuda is the son of Rabbi Elai, and Rabbi Elai is the student of Rabbi Eliezer, therefore Rabbi Yehuda taught you the mishna of Rabbi Eliezer that the offering is unfit.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a Ḥaver in the presence of three Ḥaverim, was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. At that time, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about a certain matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent a delegation of their students to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus and told them to go and tell him to examine this matter. The students found him while he was carrying items that were ritually pure. The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus seated Sages from his own yeshiva next to the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. And he stood and examined the matter.
The Gemara asks: But how, then, should he act so that he can be heard? The Gemara answers: It is like that which is taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the son of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai died, and Rabbi Yehuda entered the study hall. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya entered after him and sat by his side. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai then whispered his lecture to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya whispered it to the disseminator, and the disseminator sounded to the public what had been told to him. In this way, it became known that Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai was in mourning.
The Sages taught Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say they taught the son of Rabbi Yirmeya, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: The cluster and all its surroundings are impure, but the entire winepress is pure.
The Gemara recounts a related incident: The son of Rabbi Yirmeya’s father-in-law, i.e., his wife’s brother, who was a minor, shut the doors of his father’s house before Rabbi Yirmeya in order to prevent Rabbi Yirmeya from establishing legal possession of the house or a chamber that he claimed belonged to him. Rabbi Yirmeya came before Rabbi Avin to file a legal claim against his brother-in-law.
§ The Sages taught: These are the activities that a mourner is prohibited from engaging in: He is prohibited from working, and from bathing, and from anointing himself with oil, and from engaging in sexual relations, and from wearing shoes. And he is prohibited from reading in the Torah, and in the Prophets, and in the Writings, and from studying in the Mishna, in the midrash, and in the halakhot, and in the Talmud, and in the aggadot. But if the public needs him to teach them these things, he need not refrain from doing so. There was an incident that the son of Rabbi Yosei died in Tzippori, and Rabbi Yosei entered the study hall and expounded there for the entire day.
Rav Ashi said: This is what is difficult for Rav Sheisha, i.e., Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say that such an offering did not atone, it is brought even when slaughtered not for its sake on the strength of its prior consecration for its sake. And in that case, for what purpose is the second offering brought? It is brought to atone for the sin. But if you say that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake atoned for the sin, for what purpose is the second offering brought?
The Gemara asks: What is considered rebuke for its own sake and humility not for its own sake? The Gemara answers: It is like this incident that occurred when Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav were sitting before Shmuel. Ḥiyya bar Rav said to Shmuel: See, Master, that Rav Huna is afflicting me. Rav Huna accepted upon himself that he would not afflict Ḥiyya bar Rav anymore. After Ḥiyya bar Rav left, Rav Huna said to Shmuel: Ḥiyya bar Rav did such-and-such to me, and therefore I was in the right to cause him distress. Shmuel said to him: Why did you not say this in his presence? Rav Huna said to him: Heaven forbid that the son of Rav should be humiliated because of me. This provides an example of rebuke for its own sake, as Rav Huna originally rebuked Ḥiyya bar Rav only when Shmuel was not present, and of humility not for its own sake, as Rav Huna did not forgive Ḥiyya bar Rav but simply did not wish to humiliate him.
The Gemara relates: A baby was born to the son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef. Within thirty days the baby died. He sat and mourned over him. His father, Rav Dimi bar Yosef, said to him: Are you mourning because you wish to partake of the delicacies fed to mourners? The halakha deems a child that dies before thirty days stillborn, and one does not mourn over it. He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed.
Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.
Mar Keshisha, i.e., the elder, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Do you hold that when a man sits, he sits and occupies one cubit, and consequently a sukka that seats twenty-four people must have a circumference of twenty-four cubits? In fact, three people sit and occupy two cubits. The Gemara asks: How many cubits are there in the sukka required by Rabbi Yoḥanan? There are sixteen cubits. But we require a sukka with a circumference of seventeen cubits minus one-fifth, as calculated above. The Gemara answers: He was not precise and rounded the figure down to the lower whole number; actually, the required circumference is four-fifths of a cubit larger.
§ Rava said to the son of Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: Come, and I will tell you something excellent that your father would say about that which Shmuel said: Shmuel said that in the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller went back and forgave the debtor his debt, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor’s heir can forgive the debt. With regard to this halakha, Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Shmuel concedes with regard to a woman who brings in a promissory note to the marriage for her husband, and she went back and forgave the debtor his debt, that the debt is not forgiven. Why not? Because his hand is like her hand, i.e., the husband shares equal rights to her property, and she cannot unilaterally forgive the debt.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, see that Sage who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and who said: The Sages attended to the dissolution of a vow taken by the son of Rav Huna bar Avin, and they dissolved his vow and said to him: Go and request mercy for yourself, for you have sinned by taking a vow. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra teaches: With regard to anyone who takes a vow, even if he fulfills it, he is called a sinner. Rav Zevid said: What verse teaches this? It is: “But if you refrain to vow, it will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23). It may be inferred that if you did not refrain from taking vows, there is sin.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that to say that if the child fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been alive? Didn’t Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, happen to come to the house of the son of Rav Idi bar Avin, and he prepared for them a third-born calf on the seventh day after its birth. And they said to him: Had you waited to slaughter it until the evening, we would have eaten from it. Now that you did not wait, we shall not eat from it. Apparently, if a calf is slaughtered before it was alive for eight days and definitely viable, suspicion that it is stillborn remains; the same is true of a child who dies from an accident within thirty days of birth.
What is the halakha? Whose creditor is she? The Gemara responds: Come and hear a proof, as Ravina provided one-tenth of the estate for the daughter of Rav Ashi from two sources. From Mar, son of Rav Ashi, Ravina gave her intermediate-quality land without an oath. He collected another portion of the property from the orphan son of Rav Sama, son of Rav Ashi, who was an inheritor of the same estate from his grandfather. This portion was provided of inferior-quality land, with an oath. Since, with regard to the property that Rav Ashi’s daughter was collecting from an orphan, Ravina required an oath and allowed her to collect only low-grade land, it appears that Ravina treated the daughter as the creditor of the sons and not of the father.
From whose funds must one give his father food and drink? Rav Yehuda says: From the money of the son. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: From the money of the father. The Sages gave this following ruling to Rav Yirmeya, and some say they gave this following ruling to the son of Rav Yirmeya: The halakha is like the one who says it must be paid from the money of the father.
The Gemara comments: And Rav Pappa disagrees with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as demonstrated in the following incident: There was a certain man who said: I am excommunicated from the property of the son of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether this statement was effective in generating a prohibition or not. Rav Ḥisda said to him: There is no one who, in practice, is concerned for that opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Apparently, Rav Ḥisda holds that they also disagree with regard to the phrase: I am excommunicated from you. This indicates that the dispute between the tanna’im is not with regard to specific terms but with regard to the more general question of whether terms of ostracism or excommunication are terms that can also express vows.
The Gemara comments: Now that Shmuel’s father, son of Rav Yitzḥak, has taught a baraita, another explanation can be provided. The baraita teaches: One who pinches the nape of a bird inside the courtyard and then offers it up outside is liable, but one who pinched the nape of a bird outside and then offered it up outside is exempt. And Rabbi Shimon says that he is liable. It is apparent then that Rabbi Shimon in the mishna is referring to there, i.e., to the first clause of the mishna, and disagreeing with it. Therefore, one should emend the mishna and teach: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard.
The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.
On that note, the Gemara relates: The Sages would praise son of Rav Zevid, brother of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Zevid to Rabbi Zeira, that he is a great man and he is expert in blessings. Rabbi Zeira said to the Sages: When he comes to you, bring him to me so that I can meet him. One day he happened to come before him. They brought out bread to the guest, he began and recited: Who brought forth [motzi] bread from the earth. Rabbi Zeira grew annoyed and said: This is he of whom they say that he is a great man and expert in blessings? Granted, had he recited: Hamotzi,
§ The mishna from tractate Shabbat teaches: And one may request from a halakhic authority to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this specifically when those who took the vows did not have the opportunity to request dissolution of the vows before Shabbat, or perhaps it is the case even when they did have the opportunity? The Gemara responds: Come and hear: It happened that the Sages attended to the dissolution of the vows of the son of Rav Zutra, son of Rav Zeira, on Shabbat, even for vows that they had the opportunity to dissolve while it was still day, before Shabbat had begun.
Rabbi Yoḥanan found the young son of Reish Lakish. He said to the boy: Recite to me your verse, i.e., the verse you studied today in school. The boy said to him: “A tithe shall you tithe.” The boy further said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But what is the meaning of this phrase: “A tithe shall you tithe”? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The verse means: Take a tithe so that you will become wealthy. The boy said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: From where do you derive that this is so? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and test it.
The Gemara relates another story about the precociousness of this child. And furthermore, on a different occasion Rabbi Yoḥanan found the young son of Reish Lakish, when he was sitting and studying and he was reciting the verse: “The foolishness of man perverts his way, and his heart frets against the Lord” (Proverbs 19:3). This verse means that when someone sins and every manner of mishap befalls him, he complains and wonders why these things are happening to him.
§ This is similar to that incident involving Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba, who was the Bible teacher of the sons of Reish Lakish, and some say that he was the Mishna teacher of the son of Reish Lakish. His child died. On the first day, Reish Lakish did not go to comfort him. The next day, he took Yehuda bar Naḥmani, his disseminator, with him to comfort Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba. Reish Lakish said to his disseminator: Stand and say a matter of comfort with regard to the death of the child. He began and said: “And the Lord saw it and He abhorred them, due to the provocation of His sons and His daughters” (Deuteronomy 32:19). A generation in which the fathers abhor the Holy One, Blessed be He, He is angered at their sons and their daughters, and they die when they are small.
The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [pinekas] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him.
Rav Yosef said: Let us see ourselves which argument was decided in favor of whom based on other sources, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was an incident and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Perata, the son of Rabbi Elazar ben Perata and the son of the son of Rabbi Perata the Great, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If so, what advantage does the court have? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi reversed his ruling and acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The claim of: If so, what advantage does the court have, is the reason behind Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion with regard to the question of whether, in a case where the husband violates the ordinance and renders the bill of divorce void in the presence of a court but not before the agent, it is void after the fact.
And Abaye said: From where do I say that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is disregarded? From the case where Rav Yehuda extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce from the son-in-law of Rabbi Yirmeya Bira’a, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce, and the man rendered the bill of divorce void. Rav Yehuda returned and again extracted the authorization to write a bill of divorce against his will, and said to the witnesses: Place pieces of gourd in your ears and write the bill of divorce for him, so that you will not hear if he renders the bill of divorce void again. Abaye states his proof: And if it enters your mind that disclosure of intent with regard to bills of divorce is a significant matter, in this case the witnesses see that he is running after them even though they do not hear him, so the bill of divorce should be rendered void.
GEMARA:The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat?
§ The mishna taught: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar even on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a baraita, as the Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gathered at the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira, who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: Let us sound the shofar, as in the Temple. They said to him: Let us discuss whether or not this is permitted.
the sons of Beteira; and Jonathan, son of Saul. The Gemara discusses each case: The incident revealing the modesty of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that which we just said, as he referred to himself modestly as a fox. The sons of Beteira were exceptionally modest, as they served in the position of Nasi and yet abdicated their positions in favor of Hillel when he emigrated from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. As the Master said: The sons of Beteira, upon recognizing that Hillel was a superior expert in halakha, seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them (see Pesaḥim 66a). Jonathan, son of Saul, was extremely modest, as he said to David: “And you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you” (I Samuel 23:17), despite the fact that his father, Saul, was the current king.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement, that he counts with them, is referring to a case where the principal member of the household came home within three days. And the other ruling, that he counts on his own, is referring to a case where he did not come home within three days. This conclusion is similar to what Rav said to the sons of Hatzleponi when they were in mourning: Those who come home within three days should count with you; whereas those who do not come home within three days should count on their own.
She takes an oath at the end of their marriage, i.e., when she learns that her husband died. The oath is to the effect that he did not leave her any funds when he departed overseas, as she is claiming full payment of her marriage contract. And she does not take an oath at the outset of his trip overseas, when she demands support soon after his departure. The sons of High Priests disagreed with Ḥanan’s opinion and said: She takes an oath both at the outset and at the end. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: The halakha is in accordance with their statement, i.e., that of the sons of the High Priests. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said that Ḥanan spoke well: She takes an oath only at the end.
§ We learned in the mishna: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, Ḥanan says: She takes an oath at the end, and she does not take an oath at the outset. The sons of High Priests disputed Ḥanan’s opinion and said: She takes an oath both at the outset and at the end. The Gemara comments: They disagree only with regard to an oath; however, with regard to sustenance everyone agrees that the court gives it to her. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains that Shmuel interpreted the mishna in accordance with his opinion as referring to a case when they heard concerning him that he died overseas. In this scenario, everyone agrees that the court provides her with sustenance from the husband’s estate.
Come and hear a baraita: With regard to one who went overseas and his wife is demanding sustenance, the sons of High Priests say: She takes an oath. Ḥanan says: She does not take an oath, i.e., she receives sustenance without having to swear. And if he came and said: I apportioned money for her sustenance and left her with sufficient funds, he is deemed credible and she must return all that she received from his estate through the court. This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Shmuel, who maintains that the court does not supply her with sustenance ab initio.
When Rava taught this cure in Meḥoza, the sons of Manyomei the doctor tore their clothes in misery, as he taught everyone how to make a bandage, and their services would no longer be required. Rava said to them: I left you one cure that I did not reveal, with which you can make a profit, for Shmuel said: One who washes his face and does not wipe it a lot will develop
The Gemara asks: Is he really prohibited from extending greetings during the first three days of mourning? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident and the sons of Rabbi Akiva died, and all the Jews entered to eulogize them with a great eulogy.
And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the sons of Rabbi Ḥalafta of Huna: Your father said the following two statements that I heard from him: That she is never required to leave him, and that a kartzit in the sheaf does not disqualify water of purification (see Numbers 19:17–19). Even if a kartzit drinks from this water, it may still be sprinkled on a person in order to purify him from ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.
The Gemara relates a story on this topic: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages to oversee the laborers. They forgot what they had learned and were struggling to recall it. One of them said to the other: Does our deceased father know of our anguish? The other said to him: From where would he know? Isn’t it written: “His sons are honored yet he shall not know it, they come to sorrow and he shall not understand them” (Job 14:21)? The dead do not know.
Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: With regard to one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve, i.e., on the night of Shabbat, what is the halakha with regard to his ability to recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day? May one recite kiddush later, or has he lost his opportunity by failing to recite kiddush at the proper time? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: From the fact that the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say that one who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala any time over the course of the entire week, it can be inferred that here too, one who did not recite kiddush on Shabbat eve may recite kiddush at any time over the course of the entire day.
As stated above, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime over the course of the entire week. The Gemara asks: And until how many days of that week have passed may one still recite havdala? Rabbi Zeira said: Until the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, after which it is no longer considered the same week as the previous Shabbat.
“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye. Having mentioned this term, the Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Tarfon’s sister were sitting silently before Rabbi Tarfon. In an attempt to encourage them to say something, he began and said: The verse states: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Yoḥani. They said to Rabbi Tarfon: It is written: “Keturah” (Genesis 25:1), not Yoḥani. Rabbi Tarfon read, i.e., said, about them the phrase “the children of Keturah” as they were able to contribute only this small piece of information.
The Sages taught the following baraita: When the sons of Rabbi Yishmael died, four Elders entered to console him: Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Know that Rabbi Yishmael is a great Sage and well versed in aggadot. Let none of you interrupt the words of another, but rather each person should say something novel of his own. Rabbi Akiva said: And I shall speak last.
Having been granted permission to speak, Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: With regard to the death of Aaron’s sons it says: “But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning that the Lord has kindled” (Leviticus 10:6). Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: If, with regard to Nadav and Avihu, who had performed only one mitzva that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him” (Leviticus 9:9), this was nevertheless stated about them, then with regard to the sons of Rabbi Yishmael, who were well known for their performance of many mitzvot, all the more so should the entire Jewish people bewail their death.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili answered and said: With regard to Abijah, son of King Jeroboam, the verse states: “And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him” (I Kings 14:13). Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: If, with regard to Abijah, son of Jeroboam, who did only one good thing, as it is written: “Because in him there is found some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel” (I Kings 14:13), i.e., he did only one good thing, and this was his reward, then with regard to the sons of Rabbi Yishmael all the more so should they be rewarded by having the entire Jewish people mourn for them and bury them.
The Gemara proposes yet another proof. Come and hear a statement of a baraita, as Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This indicates that a mourner is in fact permitted to bathe. The Gemara rejects this argument: There it was a case where his mourning periods came one after the other, as his sons died in quick succession, and this leniency is as it is taught in a baraita: If one’s mourning periods immediately succeeded each other and his hair grew heavy, then even though it is generally prohibited for a mourner to cut his hair, he may lighten it with a razor, and he may likewise wash his garment in water.
The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the aforementioned baraitasupports Rava’s ruling. As Rabbi Abba the priest said in the name of Rabbi Yosei the priest: An incident occurred in which the sons of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, died, and he bathed in cold water all seven days of mourning. This ruling apparently indicates that a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water.
The Gemara relates: The sons of Rav Huna bar Avin bought a certain maidservant on the condition that they would pay with copper perutot. They did not have the money at the time, and therefore they gave a piece of silver [naskha] for her as collateral. Ultimately, the price of the maidservant increased and the sellers wanted to cancel the sale. They came before Rabbi Ami for his ruling and he said to them: There are no perutot here, and there is no piece of silver here either. There was no valid act of acquisition at all because they did not actually give the money, and the collateral does not transfer ownership.
The Gemara relates: A business document emerged concerning the sons of Rav Ilish, as it was a venture entered into by their late father, in which it was written that Rav Ilish and his partner will share one-half of the profit and one-half of the loss. Rava said: Rav Ilish was a great man, and therefore he would not feed people with something forbidden. In other words, he certainly would not have involved himself in a joint venture through which someone would have earned money by means of interest, and an arrangement of this kind appears to constitute interest. Consequently, no matter what, there must have been some mistake with regard to this document. If the actual condition stated that one party would receive one-half of the profit, the other party must have agreed to accept upon himself two-thirds of the loss,
The Exilarch said to Rav Hamnuna: What is the meaning of that which is written, “The holy one of God is honored” (Isaiah 58:13)? Rav Hamnuna said to him: That is Yom Kippur, when there is no eating or drinking, and so the Torah said: Honor it with a clean garment. And with regard to that which is stated about Shabbat, “And you shall honor it,” Rav said: To honor Shabbat, make the Shabbat feast earlier than on other days, in order to show that one delights in eating it. And Shmuel said: To honor Shabbat, make the Shabbat feast later, so that one’s appetite will be greater. The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: People like us, for whom meat and wine is found on our table every day, in what manner can we change it on Shabbat? He said to them: If you are accustomed to eating your meal early, make it later on Shabbat; if you are accustomed to making it late, make it earlier on Shabbat. This difference will underscore the uniqueness of Shabbat. The Gemara relates: In the summer, Rav Sheshet would seat the Sages who attended his lecture in a place where the sun would reach; in the winter, he would seat the Sages in a place where the shade would reach. He did this so that they would stand quickly after the lecture ended and not engage in discussion, which would detract from the time devoted to delighting in Shabbat. Rabbi Zeira
Ravina sat and related this halakha with regard to the tribe of Levi. The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba raised an objection to Ravina: The verse states in praise of the tribe of Levi: “Who said of his father and of his mother: I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brothers, nor did he know his sons” (Deuteronomy 33:9). This indicates that some of them did engage in idol worship and were killed by their relatives.
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.
§ This is similar to that incident involving Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba, who was the Bible teacher of the sons of Reish Lakish, and some say that he was the Mishna teacher of the son of Reish Lakish. His child died. On the first day, Reish Lakish did not go to comfort him. The next day, he took Yehuda bar Naḥmani, his disseminator, with him to comfort Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba. Reish Lakish said to his disseminator: Stand and say a matter of comfort with regard to the death of the child. He began and said: “And the Lord saw it and He abhorred them, due to the provocation of His sons and His daughters” (Deuteronomy 32:19). A generation in which the fathers abhor the Holy One, Blessed be He, He is angered at their sons and their daughters, and they die when they are small.
They said to Rabbi Elazar: Didn’t an incident of this kind occur with regard to the mother of the family of the sons of Rokhel, who was ill, and she said: Give
my brooch [kevinati] to my daughter, and the brooch is worth twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages fulfilled her statement. Rabbi Elazar said to them that the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. Rabbi Elazar meant that it is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when dealing with them the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed their mother to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister, circumventing the halakhot of inheritance.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who is not able to speak is not able to learn? But consider the following incident. There were two mute people who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. They were the sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, and some say that they were the sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda. Whenever Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would enter the study hall they would also enter and sit before the Sages, and they would nod their heads as if they understood and move their lips.
If she does not claim her marriage contract, the heirs do not administer an oath to her. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Ḥanan and the sons of the High Priests, as we learned in a mishna (104b): With regard to one who went to a country overseas and his wife claims money for sustenance, Ḥanan says: She takes an oath at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract, that her husband did not leave her with any money and that she took from his estate only what she needed for her sustenance. And she does not take an oath at the beginning, when she takes the allowance for her sustenance from his estate.
The mishna continues: The sons of the High Priests disagreed with him, and said: She takes an oath that her husband did not leave her any money at the beginning, when she comes to take money for sustenance, and at the conclusion, when she comes to claim her marriage contract. Rabbi Yirmeya suggests: Rabbi Shimon holds like Ḥanan, that she takes an oath only when she comes to collect her marriage contract. And the Rabbis, who disagree, hold like the sons of the High Priests, that she must also take an oath when she collects money for her sustenance.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who is not able to speak is not able to learn? But consider the following incident. There were two mute people who were in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. They were the sons of the daughter of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, and some say that they were the sons of the sister of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda. Whenever Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would enter the study hall they would also enter and sit before the Sages, and they would nod their heads as if they understood and move their lips.
GEMARA:The sons of Yudan the maidservant were freed. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov allowed them to marry each other’s wives after divorce. Rava said to him: Didn’t Rav Sheshet prohibit marriage in that case? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to him: He prohibited it and I permit it. I disagree with his ruling.
The Gemara relates: The stableman [ahuriyareih] of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was wealthier than King Shapur of Persia, due to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s abundant livestock. When the stableman would place fodder before the livestock, the sound of their lowing would travel the distance of three mil. He would calculate the right moment so that he would place the fodder before the animals at precisely that time when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered the latrine, so that the lowing of the animals would drown out Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s screams of pain. But even so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s voice was so loud that it overcame the sound of the livestock, and even sailors heard it out at sea.
We learned in the mishna: If one unwittingly scratches letters on his flesh on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and the Sages deem him exempt. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Didn’t the infamous ben Stada take magic spells out of Egypt in a scratch on his flesh? They said to him: He was a fool, and you cannot cite proof from a fool. That is not the way that most people write. Incidentally, the Gemara asks: Why did they call him ben Stada, when he was the son of Pandeira? Rav Ḥisda said: His mother’s husband, who acted as his father, was named Stada, but the one who had relations with his mother and fathered him was named Pandeira. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t his mother’s husband Pappos ben Yehuda? Rather, his mother was named Stada and he was named ben Stada after her. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t his mother Miriam, who braided women’s hair? The Gemara explains: That is not a contradiction. Rather, Stada was merely a nickname, as they say in Pumbedita: This one strayed [setat da] from her husband.
The steward [apotropos] of King Agrippas asked Rabbi Eliezer: For someone like me, who is accustomed to eat only one meal a day, what is the halakha? Is it sufficient that I eat one meal and exempt myself from the obligation to eat any more that day? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Each day you continue eating and taste various kinds of appetizers in deference to your own desires, and now you do not continue eating even one appetizer in deference to your Maker?
It was taught in a baraita, Sumakhos says: One who extends his intonation of the word One [eḥad] while reciting Shema, is rewarded that his days and years are extended. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: This is only true if he extends the letter dalet, so the word eḥad is sounded in its entirety. Rav Ashi said: This is only so long as one does not pronounce the letter Ḥet hurriedly.
And one may light with fish oil and tar. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: One may light with gourd oil and naphtha. Sumakhos says: Among the substances that emerge from the flesh of living beings, one may light only with fish oil. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Sumakhos is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, who also permits lighting with fish oil. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to what Rav Beruna said that Rav said: One is permitted to use molten fat to which oil was added for lighting. They disagree with regard to this halakha; however, their opinions are not defined and it is unclear which of them permits using it and which prohibits using it.
The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disqualified even small cloths from being used as roofing in the sukka because they can become ritually impure. Abaye said: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and Sumakhos said the same thing. The Gemara specifies: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; that which we stated above. Sumakhos; as it was taught in a baraita: Sumakhos says: A sukka that he roofed with roofing made from spun thread is disqualified because spun thread can become ritually impure from leprosy.
And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.
It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that one may establish an eiruvteḥuminfor a nazirite with wine, even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted to others. And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teḥuminfor an Israelite with teruma, even though he may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an eiruv teḥumin must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. Summakhos, however, says: One may only establish an eiruv teḥumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food.
We learned in the mishna: Summakhos disagrees and says: One may not establish an eiruv for an Israelite with teruma, but only with regular, non-sacred food items. The Gemara notes: But with regard to the mishna’s ruling that an eiruv may be established for a nazirite with wine, Summakhos does not appear to disagree. What is the reason for the distinction? The Gemara explains: A nazirite can ask a Sage to annul his vow and release him from his nazirite status, and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.
The Gemara asks: What makes it necessary to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case? Rather, we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: Summakhos agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself. Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well. Therefore, during twilight, when the eiruv would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.
The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma? Surḥav bar Pappa said in the name of Ze’eiri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride’s head. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a veil [kerita] covering the bride’s face under which the bride dozes [menamna].
Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: Suriel, the heavenly ministering angel of the Divine Presence, told me three things from on high: Do not take your cloak in the morning from the hand of your servant and wear it; do not ritually wash your hands from one who has not ritually washed his own hands; and only return a cup of asparagus to the one who gave it to you. Why is this? Because a band of demons and some say a band of angels of destruction lie in wait for a person and say: When will a person encounter one of these circumstances and be captured?
It was stated above that a Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: All of you are designated for life in the World-to-Come. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God pardoned them for this sin? The Gemara answers: The Sage Taḥlifa taught in a baraita that the verse states: “On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went to their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant and for Israel His people” (I Kings 8:66).
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
Concerning a similar matter, the Gemara relates: Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at a place called Ḥatar, and he taught them: It is permitted to wash wheat in a small amount of water in order to make it easier to peel during the grinding process on Passover, and there is no concern that perhaps it will become leavened. They said to him: Isn’t Rabbi Mani from Tyre here i.e., near our location? And it is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar may not teachhalakhain the vicinity of his teacher, unless he is distant from the teacher by at least three parasangs [parsaot], corresponding to the size of the camp of Israel. In the encampment in the wilderness no one else judged cases, as all the Jewish people brought their cases to Moses (see Exodus 33:7). Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ami, said to them: It did not enter my mind that Rabbi Mani was in the vicinity.
The Gemara relates another incident: A certain man found Rabbi Tarfon eating figs from his field at the time when most of the knives had been set aside. He placed Rabbi Tarfon in a sack, lifted him up, and carried him to throw him into the river. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Woe to Tarfon, for this man is killing him. When that man heard that he was carrying the great Rabbi Tarfon, he left him and fled. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel: All the days of that righteous man, Rabbi Tarfon, he was distressed over this matter, saying: Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah, as Rabbi Tarfon was only released out of respect for his Torah learning.
The mishna continues: And the incident came before the Sages of the court in Yavne, and they ruled that such an animal is permitted and is not a tereifa. As Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: You are exempt, as any judge accepted as an expert for the public is exempt from liability to pay.
Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Tarfon, you are an expert for the court, and any expert for the court is exempt from liability to pay.
Second, that the halakhic rulings for the territories of Ammon and Moab in Transjordan, although similar to those of Eretz Yisrael, are not exactly the same, as their residents tithe the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. The total abandonment of fields in the seventh year does not apply in Ammon and Moab, as they are not part of Eretz Yisrael. Instead, in those areas one must bring the poor man’s tithe to the paupers of Eretz Yisrael, as there are no tithes in Eretz Yisrael in the Sabbatical Year. Lastly, Haggai testified: And one accepts converts from the Karduyin and the Tarmodim, without concern that there might be Jews mingled among them, which could render them mamzerim and prohibited from entering the community.
§ Haggai also declared: And one accepts converts from the Karduyim and the Tarmodim. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rami bar Yeḥezkel teach in a baraita: One does not accept converts from the Karduyim? Rav Ashi said: Kartuyim, not Karduyim, was stated by Rami bar Yeḥezkel. As people say in common discourse: The Kartuyim are unfit.
Rabbi Yoḥanan and the Elders both say: One does not accept converts from the Tarmodim. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that one does not accept converts from the Tarmodim due to a concern that Jews may have intermingled with them? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: All clothing with stains of blood that might be from a menstruating woman and that come from the city on the border of Eretz Yisrael called Rekem are ritually pure, as it can be assumed that they belong to gentiles, and the blood of a menstruating gentile woman is not ritually impure.
Another exceptional incident is related: And when his slave, Tavi, died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences for his death as one would for a close family member. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that one does not accept condolences for the death of slaves? Rabban Gamliel said to his students: My slave, Tavi, is not like all the rest of the slaves, he was virtuous and it is appropriate to accord him the same respect accorded to a family member.
MISHNA:How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [shappud] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside it and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head outside it. One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spit nor on a metal grill [askela]. However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.
Tavi the bird hunter [rishba] that Shmuel said: The decree that growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma, the Sages also issued on that day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rabbi Ḥanina said: A decree due to pure teruma in the hand of a non-priest Israelite. One who seeks to avoid giving teruma to a priest would plant it in the ground and thereby negate its teruma status. To prevent him from doing so, the Sages decreed that that which grows from the teruma is also considered teruma. Consequently, one would gain nothing by replanting the teruma.
Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him: But many times I said before Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon on this matter, and never did he say anything to me to indicate that he disagreed. Rav Huna said to him: How did you teach the mishna? Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him: With the opposite attributions, that is say, the position that is attributed in the mishna to Rabbi Yosei, I would teach in the name of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna said to him: Due to that reason, he never said anything to you, for according to your version you ruled correctly. Tavi, son of Mari Tavi, said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
On the other hand: Woe to the wicked, as not only do they render themselves liable, but they also render their children and children’s children liable until the end of all generations. For example, Canaan had many children who deserved to be ordained as rabbis and instructors of the public due to their great stature in Torah study, like Tavi, the servant of Rabban Gamliel, who was famous for his wisdom; but their father’s liability caused them to remain as slaves.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But they raised a dilemma before Shmuel: From when does one mention: And give dew and rain? He said to them: From when they bring wood into the house of Tavut the bird hunter [rishba]. This is apparently a different date than that mentioned by Ḥananya. The Gemara suggests: Perhaps this and that are one measure of time, i.e., Shmuel merely provided a sign of sixty days after the autumnal equinox.
The Gemara cites a statement that Tavut the hunter said that Shmuel said: With regard to this myrtle leaf, it is prohibited to insert it into a hole in a barrel to be used as a spout. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Yeimar of Difti said: It is a decree issued due to the concern lest one come to make an actual spout on Shabbat. Rav Ashi said: It is a decree issued lest one cut a myrtle leaf from its branch on Shabbat for this purpose. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case in which the leaves were already cut and placed, as in that case, Rav Ashi’s concern would not apply, but Rav Yeimar would still rule stringently.
The Gemara derives a proof: Come and hear, as the Sage Tavyumei taught the following baraita: If this man had five sons and that man had five daughters, and the first man said: One of your daughters is betrothed to one of my sons, each and every one of the daughters requires five bills of divorce, one from each of the sons, due to the uncertainty of who is betrothed to whom. If one of the sons died before giving his bill of divorce, each and every one of the daughters requires four bills of divorce, one from each of the surviving brothers, and Ḥalitza from one of them, in case she was betrothed to the deceased son. The Ḥalitza of one of the brothers suffices to release her from her levirate bond. According to Rava this betrothal should not be valid, as it is not given to consummation. Why, then, do they each require bills of divorce?
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.
The mishna further states: From the time when murderers proliferated, the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified. The ritual was performed only when the identity of the murderer was completely unknown. Once there were many known murderers, the conditions for the performance of the ritual were no longer present, as the probable identity of the murderer was known. From the time when Eliezer ben Dinai, who was also called Teḥina ben Perisha, came, they renamed him: Son of a murderer. This is an example of a publicly known murderer.
The message continued: And the offspring of Nahshon, meaning the Sages of the court of the Nasi, who was descended from the prince of Judah, Nahshon ben Amminadab (see Numbers 7:12), sought to establish a pillar, i.e., they sought to add a month to the year. But that Edomite, the local Roman governor, did not allow them to intercalate the year. Nevertheless, the members of the assembly gathered, and they established a pillar, in the month in which Aaron the priest died, i.e., the Sages of Eretz Yisrael convened in the month of Av, which is before Rosh HaShana, and determined that the following year should be intercalated. Evidently, then, in exigent circumstances, intercalation may be done even before Rosh HaShana. The Gemara answers: The court may calculate the need for an extra month even before Rosh HaShana, but they may not reveal and publicize the decision until after Rosh HaShana.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: A woman who was not careful in observing the laws of menstruation, what is the reason that she is punished during childbirth? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: She sinned with regard to the chambers of her womb; therefore, she is afflicted in the chambers of her womb. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to menstruation; but with regard to a woman who was not careful in separating Ḥalla and in kindling the Shabbat lights, what is there to say? Rather, it must be explained in accordance with that which that Galilean taught before Rav Ḥisda. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I placed a quarter [revi’it] of a logof blood in you when you were formed, and about matters of the blood of menstruation I warned you.
Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained in Jerusalem until the reign of Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and this treasure of silver and gold still remains in Rome.
Similarly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai: Rome is destined to fall into the hands of Persia. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the First Temple, that the descendants of Shem built it and the Chaldeans destroyed it, and in turn the Chaldeans, ruled by Belshazzar, fell to Persians, ruled by Darius the Mede and his son-in-law Cyrus the Persian; the Second Temple, that the Persians built it and the Romans destroyed it, is it not right that the Romans will fall into the hands of the Persians?
Rav Ḥana bar Aḥa said that the Sages in the school of Rav say: There are four creations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, yet He, as it were, regrets that He created them, as they do more harm than good. And these are they: Exile, Chaldeans, and Ishmaelites, and the evil inclination. Exile, as it is written: “Now therefore, for what am I here, says the Lord, seeing that My people is taken away for naught” (Isaiah 52:5). God Himself is asking: For what am I here? Chaldeans, as it is written: “Behold the land of the Chaldeans, this is the people that was not” (Isaiah 23:13), meaning, if only they never were.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to the reasoning behind the Distinguished Rabbi Yosei’s a fortiori inference, I do not know what it is, as the response to his inference is right by its side: Food whose impurity came from contact with one who immersed that day can prove that a degree of impurity that disqualifies teruma does not necessarily impart fourth-degree impurity to sacrificial food, as this food disqualifies teruma upon contact, but it does not impart fourth-degree impurity upon sacrificial food.
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon as well, isn’t it written: “And your judges”; why does he not agree that this indicates a need for two more judges? The Gemara answers: He requires that additional word “Elders” in order to teach that they must be the distinguished among your judges, i.e., judges from the Sanhedrin. And how does Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from the phrase “and your judges” that there is a need for two additional judges, know that they need to be from the Sanhedrin? He derives it from an extra letter. The verse could have simply stated: The Elders. Instead, it adds a letter and states: “Your Elders,” to teach that they must be the distinguished among the Elders of Israel.
And Rabbi Shimon could say: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: The Elders, I would say that it includes even the Elders of the marketplace, meaning any honorable people. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “Your Elders,” to indicate specifically Torah Sages, who are revered by all. And if the Merciful One had written in the Torah only: “Your Elders,” I would say that it includes even Elders from a lesser Sanhedrin. Therefore, the Merciful One also writes: “And your judges,” to teach that they must be the distinguished among your judges, from the Great Sanhedrin.
The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥisda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav Ḥisda is referring specifically to the latter case.
There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is thisbaraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav Ḥisda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Had their statements, i.e., the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, been based on statements of the Torah, and the statement of the Distinguished One [Beribbi], Rabbi Yosei, based on the texts of the tradition [kabbala], the Prophets and Writings, even so we would listen to the statement of the Distinguished One, Rabbi Yosei. All the more so now that their statements are based on texts of the tradition, as both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel derived their rulings from verses from the Prophets, while the statement of the Distinguished One, Rabbi Yosei, is based on the statements of the Torah.
The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had a certain hen that fell into the fire. After it was slaughtered, he sent it before the distinguished Rabbi Elazar HaKappar and said to him: Its innards were green, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar deemed it kosher. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If they turned green they are unfit? Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said to him: The Sages said that if they turned green they are unfit only with regard to the gizzard, the heart, and the liver, which are naturally red. Other innards of a hen, such as the intestines, are naturally green, and a green appearance in them does not render the hen a tereifa. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: Concerning which innards did they say that a green appearance renders the bird a tereifa? Only concerning the gizzard, the heart, and the liver.
The emperor’s daughter went and said this to her father. He put the wine in vessels of gold and silver and it turned sour. When his advisors came and told the emperor that the wine had turned sour, he said to his daughter: Who told you to do this? His daughter responded: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya. The emperor summoned him and said to him: Why did you say this to her? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to him: Just as she said to me, so I said say to her, to demonstrate to her that fine material is best preserved in the least of vessels. The emperor said to him: But there are handsome people who are learned.
The Gemara inquires: And why did they call him Naḥum of Gam Zu? The reason is that with regard to any matter that occurred to him, he would say: This too is for the good [gam zu letova]. Once, the Jews wished to send a gift [doron] to the house of the emperor. They said: Who should go and present this gift? Let Naḥum of Gam Zu go, as he is accustomed to miracles. They sent with him a chest [sifta] full of jewels and pearls, and he went and spent the night in a certain inn. During the night, these residents of the inn arose and took all of the precious jewels and pearls from the chest, and filled it with earth. The next day, when he saw what had happened, Naḥum of Gam Zu said: This too is for the good.
The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor’s house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace.
§ Apropos its discussion of the destruction of the Temple and the calamities that befell Israel, the Gemara cites the verse: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau” (Genesis 27:22), which the Sages expounded as follows: “The voice”; this is the cry stirred up by the emperor Hadrian, who caused the Jewish people to cry out when he killed six hundred thousand on six hundred thousand in Alexandria of Egypt, twice the number of men who left Egypt. “The voice of Jacob”; this is the cry aroused by the emperor Vespasian, who killed four million people in the city of Beitar. And some say: He killed forty million people. “And the hands are the hands of Esau”; this is the wicked kingdom of Rome that destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.
§ Apropos its discussion of the destruction of the Temple and the calamities that befell Israel, the Gemara cites the verse: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau” (Genesis 27:22), which the Sages expounded as follows: “The voice”; this is the cry stirred up by the emperor Hadrian, who caused the Jewish people to cry out when he killed six hundred thousand on six hundred thousand in Alexandria of Egypt, twice the number of men who left Egypt. “The voice of Jacob”; this is the cry aroused by the emperor Vespasian, who killed four million people in the city of Beitar. And some say: He killed forty million people. “And the hands are the hands of Esau”; this is the wicked kingdom of Rome that destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.
§ It was stated earlier that the city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a carriage. The Gemara explains that it was customary in Beitar that when a boy was born they would plant a cedar tree and when a girl was born they would plant a cypress [tornita]. And when they would later marry each other they would cut down these trees and construct a wedding canopy for them with their branches. One day the emperor’s daughter passed by there and the shaft of the carriage in which she was riding broke. Her attendants chopped down a cedar from among those trees and brought it to her. Owing to the importance that they attached to their custom, the residents of Beitar came and fell upon them and beat them. The attendants came and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor then came against them in war.
The demon ben Temalyon went before them and ascended into the emperor’s daughter and possessed her. When Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai arrived there, the emperor’s palace, he said: Ben Temalyon, emerge! Ben Temalyon, emerge! And once Rabbi Shimon called to him, ben Temalyon emerged and left the emperor’s daughter, and she was cured. When the emperor saw that Rabbi Shimon had cured his daughter, he said to them: Ask from me any reward that you want to ask. And he took them up to his treasury to take whatever they wanted. They found that letter there that contained the decrees against the Jewish people, and they took it and tore it up, and thereby nullified the decrees.
Rabban Gamliel continued to instruct the scribe: And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Diaspora in Babylonia, and to our brothers who are in Media, and to the rest of the entire Jewish Diaspora, may your peace increase forever. We are informing you that the fledglings are tender, and the lambs are thin, and time for the spring has not come. And consequently, the matter is good before me and before my colleagues, i.e., in our estimation, and I have consequently added thirty days to this year. The third letter indicates that evidently Rabban Gamliel included others in his decision. The Gemara rejects this, and explains: Perhaps this incident occurred after they deposed Rabban Gamliel from his position as Nasi. When he was reinstated, he shared his office with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Therefore, he wrote the decision in the name of his colleagues as well.
He sent to them: This is what my father said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdom of Rome invaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stones and sat in the stores on the Temple Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What are the halakhic ramifications of this statement? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: To say that they no longer judged cases of fines. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that they no longer judged cases of fines? Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. Rather, emend and say: That they no longer judged capital cases. The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the halakha is that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases (Tosafot).
The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.
They said in explanation: Once, the evil kingdom of Greece issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not bring wood for the arrangement of the altar and that they may not bring first fruits to Jerusalem. And they placed guards [prozda’ot] on the roads, in the manner that Jeroboam, son of Nevat, placed guards, so that the Jews could not ascend for the pilgrim Festival.
Similarly, the Gemara relates: Rava and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch. After the meal, when they removed the table from before them, a portion [ristena] of food was sent to them from the house of the Exilarch. Rava ate it and Rabbi Zeira did not eat it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rava: Do you, Master, not hold that once the table was removed, he is forbidden to eat? Rava said to him: We are dependent upon the table of the Exilarch, and so long as he has not completed his meal, his guests have not completed their meals either.
On the topic of meals, the Gemara relates the following: The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: Although you are elderly Sages, the Persians are more expert than you with regard to the required etiquette at meals. The Persian custom is that when there are two divans on which they would recline, the greater of the two people reclines first and the person second to him in importance reclines on the divan above him, alongside his head. When there are three divans, the greatest of the three reclines on the middle divan, the one second to him in importance reclines on the divan above him, and the one third to him in importance reclines on the divan below the greatest of the three.
The Gemara discusses Rava’s conduct at meals at the house of the Exilarch. Rava said: When we would eat bread at the house of the Exilarch, we would recite the Grace after Meals blessing in groups of three. The Gemara asks: Let them recite the blessing in groups of ten. The Gemara answers: Then the Exilarch would hear and become angry upon seeing a large group of Sages reciting Grace after Meals before he completed his meal. The Gemara asks: Why could they not satisfy their obligation with the Exilarch’s blessing? The Gemara answers: Since everyone is making noise, they do not hear and would not fulfill their obligation.
Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason for bringing this example? If you say that because large numbers of people are to be found at the residence of the governor [harmana] in order to request licenses and authorizations, and they remind each other of the reason it is permissible to establish an eiruv there, and consequently they will not arrive at mistaken conclusions with regard to other places, then every city should have the same status, as the entire Jewish people are also found together on Shabbat morning when they come to pray. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: For example, the village of Natzu’i was a private city belonging to a single individual before a large influx of residents turned it into a public city.
Rabbi Ḥanina said that the following parable serves to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: This is comparable to a king who is exiting a city and a governor is entering. Etiquette dictates that the inhabitants of the city first escort the king out of the city to take leave of him in a dignified fashion, and afterward they go out to greet the governor. Similarly, one should first recite havdala, to take leave of Shabbat, and only then recite kiddush over the Festival, whose sanctity is lesser than that of Shabbat.
It is related that there was a certain bill of divorce in which the date was written in the name of the governor [istandera] of the city of Bascar, i.e., the date was marked according to the years of his government. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent this dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha in a case like this?
The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, on weekdays, too, he should be permitted to drink wine each and every day, as Elijah did not arrive the previous day. Rather, the reason for the prohibition on weekdays must be that we say that Elijah may already have arrived at the Great Court, but it has not yet become a matter of public knowledge. Likewise, here too we should say that Elijah already arrived the previous day at the Great Court, on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakhaeven if the man and woman both concede that there was a betrothal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The Gemara asks: Who is the Great Court? Rav. And there are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. Who is the Great Court? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who did not see the great synagogue [deyofloston] of Alexandria of Egypt never saw the glory of Israel. They said that its structure was like a large basilica [basileki], with a colonnade within a colonnade. At times there were six hundred thousand men and another six hundred thousand men in it, twice the number of those who left Egypt. In it there were seventy-one golden chairs [katedraot], corresponding to the seventy-one members of the Great Sanhedrin, each of which consisted of no less than twenty-one thousand talents of gold. And there was a wooden platform at the center. The sexton of the synagogue would stand on it, with the scarves in his hand. And because the synagogue was so large and the people could not hear the communal prayer, when the prayer leader reached the conclusion of a blessing requiring the people to answer amen, the sexton waved the scarf and all the people would answer amen.
Nebuzaradan said to them: I will appease Zechariah. He brought the members of the Great Sanhedrin and of a lesser Sanhedrin and killed them alongside the bubbling blood, but it still did not settle. He then brought young men and virgins and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. He then brought schoolchildren and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. Finally Nebuzaradan said to him: Zechariah, Zechariah, I have killed the best of them. Would it please you if I destroyed them all? When he said this, the blood at last settled.
The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda said this halakha with regard to the Great Sanhedrin, about which specific verses are written, and he derives from these verses that the Great Sanhedrin must be composed of exactly seventy judges. Have you heard him say with regard to the rest of the courts, those whose composition is not explicitly addressed in the Torah, that these courts can also be composed of an even number of judges?
The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings.
Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained in Jerusalem until the reign of Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and this treasure of silver and gold still remains in Rome.
We learned in the mishna that Bilga always divides the shewbread in the south, even when it is the incoming watch. The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Miriam, the daughter of a member of the Bilga watch, who apostatized and went and married a soldier [sardeyot] serving in the army of the Greek kings. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, she entered with them and was kicking with her sandal on the altar and said: Wolf, wolf [lokos], until when will you consume the property of the Jewish people, and yet you do not stand with them when they face exigent circumstances? And after the victory of the Hasmoneans over the Greeks, when the Sages heard about this matter and how she denigrated the altar, they fixed the ring of the Bilga watch in place, rendering it nonfunctional, and sealed its niche.
The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings.
a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight lamps. But one may not fashion a candelabrum with seven lamps even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, as in exigent circumstances the candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Also, one may not fashion a candelabrum of wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned it. When they first purified the Temple they had to prepare the candelabrum out of wood, as no other material was available. Since this candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.
In relation to the above, the Gemara inquires: What is the origin of Nicanor’s Day and what is the origin of Trajan’s Day? As it is taught in a baraita: Nicanor was one of the generals [iparkhei] in the Greek army, and each and every day he would wave his hand over Judea and Jerusalem and say: When will this city fall into my hands, and I shall trample it? And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over them, they killed Nicanor in battle, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them. This occurred on the thirteenth of Adar.
In a discussion related to the structure of the natural world, the Sages taught: The Jewish Sages say the celestial sphere of the zodiac is stationary, and the constellations revolve in their place within the sphere; and the sages of the nations of the world say the entire celestial sphere revolves, and the constellations are stationary within the sphere. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A refutation of their words that the entire sphere moves can be derived from the fact that we have never found the constellation of Ursa Major in the South or Scorpio in the North. This indicates that it is the stars themselves that revolve in place and not the celestial sphere as a whole, because otherwise it would be impossible for Ursa Major to remain in the North and Scorpio to remain in the South.
The Gemara presents a similar dispute: The Jewish Sages say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament and is therefore visible, and at night it travels above the firmament. And the sages of the nations of the world say that during the day the sun travels beneath the firmament, and at night it travels beneath the earth and around to the other side of the world. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: And the statement of the sages of the nations of the world appears to be more accurate than our statement. A proof to this is that during the day, springs that originate deep in the ground are cold, and during the night they are hot compared to the air temperature, which supports the theory that these springs are warmed by the sun as it travels beneath the earth.
The Sages taught in a baraita: The Jewish Sages count the years from Creation and the flood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, from Tishrei, and they calculate the cycles of the sun and the moon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from Nisan. The sages of the gentile nations of the world, on the other hand, count both the years from Creation and the flood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from Nisan.
The Gemara answers that we are talking about a situation where the Nasi died, in which case all of Israel must defile themselves in order to participate in his burial. The Gemara asks: When did the Nasi die? If you say that he died on the thirteenth and everyone became ritually impure as a result, why do I need to immerse the slaughtering knife to begin with? It will become ritually impure again in any event. Rather, he died on the fourteenth and they did not know in advance that the Paschal lamb would be brought in a state of impurity. But if so, what is different about the slaughtering knife that he immerses it and what is different about the cleaver that he does not immerse it?
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this halakhaonly in a case where the Nasi was in a dying state on the thirteenth. With regard to a slaughtering knife, about which there is only one doubt, that perhaps the Nasi will die before the Festival and the Paschal lamb will be brought in a state of ritual impurity, he immerses it, for if the Nasi does not die he will need a ritually pure knife to slaughter his Paschal lamb. With regard to a cleaver, about which there are two doubts, that perhaps the Nasi will die and a ritually pure knife will not be needed, and that even if he does not die, perhaps the meat of the Paschal lamb will be plentiful and the Festival peace-offering will not be brought, he does not immerse it.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rabban Gamliel an individual? According to this reasoning, his images of the moon should have been prohibited, as they would have aroused suspicion. The Gemara answers: Since he is the Nasi, the head of the Great Sanhedrin, many people were always found with him, and therefore there was no room for suspicion. The Gemara suggests an alternative answer: If you wish, say that these images were not whole; rather, they were formed from pieces of images that had to be put together. Only complete images are prohibited.
On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Ḥananya: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You will see the Persians capture you, and enslave you, and force you to herd unclean animals with a golden staff. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Rabbi Yehoshua and that night he saw it in his dream. King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Shmuel said to him: You will see the Romans come and take you into captivity and force you to grind date pits in mills of gold. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Shmuel, and that night he saw it in his dream.
Rabbi Oshaya dealt with his assertion and said to him: This is not a sign of your righteousness but is simply because you do not know how to do it, to destroy us. If you seek to destroy all of the Jewish people, you cannot because they are not all with you in your kingdom. If you destroy only those Jews who are with you in your kingdom, you will be called a severed kingdom for murdering part of its own population. The apostate said to him: I swear by Gappa, god of the Romans, with this problem we lie down and with this problem we rise up, for we are constantly struggling with the dilemma of how to eliminate the Jewish people.
Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: What is the meaning of that which is written: “God understands its ways and He knows its place” (Job 28:23)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, knows the Jewish people, who are unable to withstand the harsh decrees of the Romans. Therefore, He exiled them to Babylonia, whose people are less cruel. And Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, exiled Israel to Babylonia only due to the fact it is a land as deep as the netherworld, i.e., it is a land of plains and valleys, which alludes to that which is stated: “I shall ransom them from the power of the netherworld, I shall redeem them from death” (Hosea 13:14). Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is due to the fact that their language, Aramaic, is similar to the language of the Torah, which enables the Jews who live there to study Torah.
The Sages in Yavne were wont to say: I who learn Torah am God’s creature and my counterpart who engages in other labor is God’s creature. My work is in the city and his work is in the field. I rise early for my work and he rises early for his work. And just as he does not presume to perform my work, so I do not presume to perform his work. Lest you say: I engage in Torah study a lot, while he only engages in Torah study a little, so I am better than he, it has already been taught: One who brings a substantial sacrifice and one who brings a meager sacrifice have equal merit, as long as he directs his heart towards Heaven (Rav Hai Gaon, Arukh).
like Ila in Yavne, whom the Sages in Yavne permitted to take a wage of four issar for issuing a ruling concerning a small animal and sixissarfor issuing a ruling concerning a large animal. They permitted this provided that he would be paid whether it turned out that the firstborn was unblemished or whether it was blemished.
Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meḥoza say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to land the halakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, but not with regard to movable property.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But didn’t the Sages who came from Meḥoza say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav Naḥman: In a case where the knife is diverted from the place of slaughter above the ring, the slaughter is valid? Rav Yosef said to him: Each river and its unique course, i.e., each place follows its custom, and in Meḥoza the custom was not in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.
The Gemara relates: There were certain hooligans [biryonei] who were living in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zeira. He brought them close, i.e., treated them with friendship, in order to cause them to repent of their sins, but the other Sages disapproved of his actions. When Rabbi Zeira died, those hooligans said: Until now, there was the short one with singed legs, i.e., Rabbi Zeira, who would pray for compassion for us. Who will pray for compassion for us now? They thought about this in their hearts and repented. Ultimately, Rabbi Zeira’s actions were proven correct, as they repented.
Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with Aḥerim. Abaye said: Regarding the time from which one may don phylacteries, a mitzva incumbent only by day, the halakhais in accordance with Aḥerim. But with regard to the recitation ofShema, one should conduct himself in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shemawith sunrise, and one should act accordingly.
It was also taught in a baraita: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shemawith sunrise in order to juxtapose the blessing of redemption, which immediately follows the recitation of Shema,with prayer, and pray during the day.
The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and holds that one may recite the morning Shema until the third hour of the day, and perhaps the halakha in the mishna was directed toward those whose practice was in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot, with regard to whom Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shemawith sunrise.
After that, the wicked kingdom of Rome will draw an a fortiori inference with regard to itself: Just as the gifts of these, who are not their brothers, were accepted in this manner, we, the descendants of Edom, who are their brothers, all the more so is it not clear that our gifts will be accepted? The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Gabriel: “Rebuke the wild beast of the reeds [kaneh], the multitude of [adat] the bulls” (Psalms 68:31). Rebuke the beast and acquire [keneh] the congregation [eda] of Israel. The nation of Rome, which enslaved Israel in its current exile, is less worthy than the other two nations.
Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.
That was also taught in a baraita: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One reason is that they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King’s decree that the builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads its dominance throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remnants of his brethren will return with the children of Israel” (Micah 5:2). The duration of Rome’s rule over the world will be the duration of a pregnancy, nine months.
The Gemara challenges this: And are there no more cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? Surely there are additional cases like the one in the baraitataught by Rav Yosef: It is told that Theodosius of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids, young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, on the eve of Passover, as they did in the Temple. Shimon ben Shata? sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?
Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?
The Gemara asks: And where did Daniel go? He certainly did not bow to the graven image, and he was not cast into the furnace. Apparently, he was elsewhere. Rav says: He went to dig the great river in Tiberias. And Shmuel says: Daniel went to bring choice alfalfa seed from a distance, and therefore he was not in Babylonia. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He went to bring the high-quality pigs of Alexandria of Egypt. The Gemara asks: Is that so that he went to bring the pigs? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Theodosius the doctor says: No cow or sow emerges from Alexandria of Egypt whose womb is not severed so that it will not give birth? The Gemara answers: They were small pigs that he brought without the knowledge of the people of Alexandria.
The Gemara cites examples of people who were concerned about malicious speech. There were these people of the Galilee about whom a rumor emerged that they had killed someone. They came before Rabbi Tarfon and said to him: Will the Master hide us? Rabbi Tarfon said to them: What should we do? If I do not hide you, your pursuers will see you and kill you. If I do hide you, this too is problematic, as didn’t the Rabbis say: With regard to this prohibition against listening to malicious speech, even though one should not accept the malicious speech as true, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from ignoring it? Therefore, you must go and hide yourselves.
He said to him: I saw myself peeling eggs. He said to him: You stripped dead people, because an egg is eaten at the meal of comfort after burying the dead. The same heretic said to him: Everything you have interpreted is true, with the exception of this one, the last interpretation, which is not true. Meanwhile, this woman came and said to him: This cloak that you are wearing belongs to such-and-such a man, who died and whom you stripped of his clothing.
The Gemara relates another unusual story. The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man who married a one-armed woman, and he did not realize that she was one-armed until the day that she died. Rav said: Come and see how modest this woman was that her husband did not realize this about her. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: That is typical conduct for her, as a woman typically covers herself. All the more so a one-armed woman makes sure to cover her defect. Rather, say: How modest was this man that he did not recognize this in his wife.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters.
Rav Pappa says: Learn from the ruling concerning the High Priest that the weather of the year follows the months, meaning that changes in the seasons are in accordance with the sequence of the months in the standard, non-intercalated calendar. The High Priest would not want the year to be intercalated, because then the colder weather of Marḥeshvan would occur during Tishrei. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But isn’t that contradicted by the incident of those three cattle herders that were standing around, and the Sages heard them saying various statements about annual weather signs?
They further taught that in the war of Titus the Sages decreed upon the crowns of brides. The Gemara clarifies: What are the crowns of brides? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A city of gold, a gold crown engraved with the design of a city, worn by women as an ornament. This is also taught in a baraita: Which are the crowns of brides that were forbidden? The crown of a bride is a city of gold. However, one may make it as a cap of fine wool [meilat].
§ Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High.
The mishna taught that mamzerim were among those who ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard” (Nehemiah 2:19), and elsewhere it is written with regard to Tobiah the Ammonite: “For there were many in Judah sworn to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Jehohanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah” (Nehemiah 6:18). The Gemara proceeds to explain: This tannaholds that in the case of a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer. Since Tobiah the Ammonite, a gentile, married a Jewish woman, as did his son, there were clearly mamzerim among those who ascended.
Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).
Then they brought Toda in to stand trial. Toda said to the judges: Shall Toda be executed? But isn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [toda]” (Psalms 100:1)? They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me” (Psalms 50:23).
§ Apropos the last verse cited in this baraita, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to anyone who slaughters his evil inclination after it has tempted him to sin, if he repents and confesses his sin, the verse ascribes him credit as though he had honored the Holy One, Blessed be He, in two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me [yekhabdaneni]” (Psalms 50:23), which can also be read as: Whoever slaughters his evil inclination and confesses [mitvadeh] honors Me, and the two instances of the letter nun in the word yekhabdaneni allude to the two worlds.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Oholot 4:2). Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva deems six items impure that the Rabbis deem pure, and Rabbi Akiva later retracted his opinion. And an incident occurred in which they brought a box that was full of bones to the synagogue of blacksmiths [tarsiyyim], and they placed it in an open airspace, not under the roof, so that it would not impart ritual impurity. And Todos the doctor entered and all the other doctors entered with him, and they said, after examining the pile: There is not a full spine from one corpse here.
The mishna continues: And the incident came before the Sages of the court in Yavne, and they ruled that such an animal is permitted and is not a tereifa. As Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon, as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a tereifa. Rabbi Akiva said to him: You are exempt, as any judge accepted as an expert for the public is exempt from liability to pay.
And Theodosius [Todos] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless the residents sever its womb so that it will not give birth in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them tereifot.
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the statements that follow, based primarily on those who authored those statements. Zeira; Rava; Mesharshiyya; Ḥanina toviyya, referring to Rabbi Ḥanina, who spoke of a good [tova] wife; Yannai yafe, referring to Rabbi Yannai, who spoke of one who is broad-minded [da’ato yafe]; Yoḥanan meraḥem, referring to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who spoke of one who is compassionate [meraḥem]; Yehoshua mekatzer, referring to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who spoke of one who is intolerant [da’ato ketzara].
And some teach a variant reading of the mishna: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments, so that those exiled would pray that their sons will not die. The Gemara infers: The reason that the High Priests will not die is that they pray, but if they did not pray for the High Priest not to die, would the High Priest die? What could the High Priest have done to prevent the unintentional murder? Here, in Babylonia, we say an adage to describe a situation of that sort: Toviyya sinned and Zigud is flogged. Toviyya violated a prohibition and Zigud came as a single witness to testify against him. Since the testimony of a single witness is not valid in court, he is flogged for defaming Toviyya. The sinner is unpunished and the person who sought to testify against him is flogged. This became a colloquialism for a situation where one is punished for the sin of another.
Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. The priests accepted him and his son as witnesses and disqualified his slave, for they ruled stringently that the month may be sanctified only on the basis of the testimony of those of Jewish lineage. And when they came before the court, they accepted him and his slave as witnesses and disqualified his son, due to the familial relationship.
§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Relatives are permitted to testify together about the new moon. Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava: But Rabbi Yosei, whose position is usually accepted over those of his colleagues, ruled otherwise, and also, there was an incident in which the court actually ruled against Rabbi Shimon, and yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?
What is the origin of Trajan’s Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.
Rather, Abaye said: The Sages wished to sequester all of the worn-out dinars of Hadrian and Trajan because of the coins of Jerusalem, as it was known that these coins contained a large quantity of the Temple treasury’s gold and silver. They did not permit the use of these coins until they found a verse in the Torah indicating that it is permitted: “And robbers shall enter into it, and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one wishes to know how much to give for the redemption of the firstborn son, take the worn-out gold dinars of Hadrian and Trajan, which are sold at twenty-five dinars, and deduct from them one-sixth. And these that remain are the five sela that one must give for the redemption of the firstborn son, i.e., twenty dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. The Gemara challenges: After deducting one- sixth from twenty-five, one is not left with twenty dinars, but twenty-one dinars less one-sixth [danka] of a dinar.
§ The mishna taught that on the Ninth of Av the city of Jerusalem was plowed. It is taught in a baraita: When the wicked Turnus Rufus plowed the Sanctuary, a decree was issued against Rabban Gamliel for execution. A certain Roman officer came and stood in the study hall and said surreptitiously: The man with the nose is wanted; the man with the nose is wanted. This was a hint that Rabban Gamliel, who stood out in his generation like a nose protruding from a face, was sought by the government. Rabban Gamliel heard and went into hiding.
With regard to the statement that the dead do not rise on Shabbat, the Gemara relates: The wicked Turnus Rufus, the Roman governor of Judea, asked this question of Rabbi Akiva as well. Turnus Rufus said to him: And what makes this day, Shabbat, different from other days? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And what makes this man, referring to his interlocutor, more distinguished than other men? Turnus Rufus said to him: I am more distinguished because my master the emperor wants it that way. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Shabbat too is unique because my Master wants it that way, as he has sanctified that day.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was on a step on the Temple mount, and he saw a certain gentile woman who was exceptionally beautiful and said: “How great are Your works, O Lord!” (Psalms 104:24). And Rabbi Akiva too, when he saw the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus he spat, laughed, and cried. He spat, as she was created from a putrid drop; he laughed, as he foresaw that she was destined to convert and he would marry her; he cried, as this beauty would ultimately be consumed by dirt.
§ 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.
Abaye said that Rav Sheshet said like this: In accordance with whose opinion is thisbaraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage Tutai. As it is taught in a baraita that Tutai says: The verse: “You shall grant severance to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14), indicates that it is given to a Hebrew slave but not to his creditor. Even if the slave owes money, this gift is not given to the creditor.
The Gemara comments: This is like that incident where Tuveya sinned with immorality, and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa instructed that Zigud be lashed. Zigud said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed, an objection that became a popular saying. He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” (Deuteronomy 19:15), and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation.
Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze [tzofin] at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter [bat] of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum [lifnai velefnim] of the Temple.
On the topic of Jerusalem, Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The logs of Jerusalem used for fuel were from the cinnamon tree, and when they would ignite them, their fragrance would waft through all of Eretz Yisrael. And since Jerusalem was destroyed, these fragrant logs were buried, and only a sliver the size of a grain of barley remains, and it is located in the treasury of [gazzai] Tzimtzemai the queen.
§ Rabba said: These three statements were told to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya the Exilarch in the name of Shmuel: The law of the kingdom is the law; and the term of Persian sharecropping [arisuta] is for up to forty years, since according to Persian laws the presumption of ownership is established after forty years of use; and in the case of these tax officials [zaharurei] who sold land in order to pay the land tax, the sale is valid, as the tax officials were justified in seizing it, and one may purchase the land from them.
The Sages sent a letter to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, which stated: To he who has light upon him, like Moses, who is called the son of Bithiah, Shalom. The letter continued: Ukvan the Babylonian complained before us as follows: Yirmeya, my brother, came past me, i.e., did me a great evil. And therefore tell Yirmeya; induce him [hassiuhu] to see our face in Tiberias, where we will judge his case.
And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.
This statement has practical ramifications. Abaye said: At first I studied in the house and prayed in the synagogue. Once I heard what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world, only the four cubits of halakha alone, from which I understood the significance of the four cubits of halakha, and I pray only where I study.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: One who benefits from his hard labor is greater than a God-fearing person, i.e., one who is so enthralled by his fear of God that he sits idly by and does not work. As with regard to a God-fearing person, it is written: “Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly desires His mitzvot” (Psalms 112:1), while with regard to one who benefits from his hard work, it is written: “By the labor of your hands you will live; you are happy and it is good for you” (Psalms 128:2). The Gemara explains this verse to mean that you are happy in this world, and it is good for you in the World-to-Come. And regarding a God-fearing person, happy is the man, is written about him but and it is good for you, is not written about him.
The mishna continues discussing the halakha of an etrog that was split or pierced. Ulla bar Ḥanina taught: An etrog that was pierced with a hole that completely goes through its body is unfit with any size hole. If the hole does not completely go through the etrog, it is unfit only with a hole the size of an issar coin.
§ Ulla bar Ḥanina teaches: A corpse that lacks a part does not have the halakha of dust, which imparts ritual impurity in the amount of a full ladle, nor the halakha of earth that is caught [tefusa] and considered part of a corpse. If a deficient corpse is moved, the surrounding earth is not considered part of it and need not be moved together with the body, as must be performed for a whole corpse. Nor does the halakha of a graveyard apply. If three corpses are discovered in close proximity and one of them is deficient in some way, one need not search for more bodies out of concern that the location might have been a cemetery, as must be done if three intact corpses are found. Rather, the bodies are considered isolated corpses.
Ulla bar Ḥanina taught a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 16:2): A corpse that is lacking a part of his body indispensable to life has nohalakha of surrounding earth, i.e., there is no need to remove the nearby earth along with the corpse. Nor does it have the halakha of a graveyard, i.e., it does not join with two other corpses to establish this site as a cemetery. The Gemara asks: And with regard to all these listed above, i.e., a corpse that was buried in a sitting position or with its head between its thighs, what is the reason that they are not considered part of a graveyard? The Gemara answers: We say that perhaps the deceased was a gentile, as Jews are not usually buried in these ways.
§ The mishna continues: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, it is unfit. Ulla bar Ḥinnana taught: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, but a gallnut-like berry grew in that place, it is fit, as the berry fills the void and the top of the branch no longer appears severed.
Ulla bar Menashya said in the name of Avimi that there is another answer: Here we are dealing with a case in which the bill of divorce is within three handbreadths of the roof, as anything within three handbreadths of the roof is considered to be like the roof itself, based on the principle that views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide.
The Gemara reports: Ulla bar Rav descended to lead the prayer service before Rava. He said the formula in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rava did not say anything to him. Apparently, Rava retracted his opinion and accepted the formula of the Elders of Pumbedita. Likewise, the Gemara relates: Rav Natan, father of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, descended to lead the prayer service before Rav Pappa and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rav Pappa praised him for his correct recitation.
The Gemara relates: Ulla bar Rav went down to lead the ne’ila prayer before Rava, who was in the synagogue. He opened the prayer with: You have chosen us, and he concluded with: What are we, what are our lives? And Rava praised him. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: And an individual says it after hisAmidaprayer. The individual says the confession after his Amida prayer, not within the Amida prayer as the prayer leader does.
We learned in the mishna: On the days of the New Moon and on the intermediate days of a Festival, four people read from the Torah. Ulla bar Rav raised a dilemma before Rava: The Torah portion read on the New Moon consists of three short consecutive paragraphs (Numbers 28:1–8, 9–10, 11–15). How does one read it in order to divide it among four readers? With regard to the first paragraph, which includes the verse: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifices made by fire” (Numbers 28:2), and which is eight verses, what shall we do?
Ulla bar Yishmael says: One perforates like a sieve a person who withholds halakha from a student. It is written here: “He who withholds bar, the people yikkevuhu” (Proverbs 11:26), and it is written there: “And he bored [vayyikkov] a hole in its lid of it” (II Kings 12:10). And Abaye says: One perforates him like a launderers’ utensil used for sprinkling water on garments.
The Gemara notes that this ruling was also stated by another amora, as Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said: A person is obligated to read the Megilla at night and then repeat it during the day, as it is stated: “So that my glory may sing praise to You and not be silent; O Lord, my God, I will give thanks to You forever” (Psalms 30:13). The dual formulation of singing praise and not being silent alludes to reading the Megilla both by night and by day.
Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said that Rabbi Elazar said: One who sees the cities of Judea in their desolation says: “Your sacred cities are become a wilderness” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees Jerusalem in its desolation says: “Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation” (Isaiah 64:9), and then rends his garments. One who sees the Temple in its desolation says: “Our sacred and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised You, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste” (Isaiah 64:10), and then rends his garments.
§ Ulla the Great interpreted a verse homiletically at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the kings of the earth shall give You thanks, O Lord, for they have heard the words of Your mouth” (Psalms 138:4)? It is not stated: The word of Your mouth, in the singular. Rather, the verse uses the expression: “The words of Your mouth,” in the plural. To what is this phrase referring? When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), and, in the same verse: “You shall have no other gods before Me,” the nations of the world said: He teaches this for His own honor, as both statements entail respect for God.
The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted painting an eye for medicinal purposes on Shabbat by means of a gentile. Some say that Ameimar himself painted his eye on Shabbat by means of a gentile. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in permitting this practice? You must rely upon that which Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said: All the needs of an ill person whose life is not in danger are performed by means of a gentile on Shabbat. And similarly, Rav Hamnuna said: With regard to any matter in which there is no life-threatening danger but only potential illness, one says to the gentile to perform the act, and the gentile performs the act for him.
Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said: According to this explanation, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “He shall pay,” a term that, as opposed to: “He shall recompense,” connotes that he is forced to pay against his will.
Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says: Ben Beteira interprets the phrase bein ha’arbayim literally: Between two evenings, i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long.
Furthermore, Rabbi Yosei said: I engaged in relations five times, and I planted five cedars in Eretz Yisrael. And who are these cedars? The sons of Rabbi Yosei, who were great Sages of Israel: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Ḥalafta, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Avtilas, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: Isn’t there Vardimas, who was also Rabbi Yosei’s son? The Gemara answers: Vardimas is the same as Menaḥem. And why did they call him Vardimas? Because his face was as beautiful as a rose [vered]. The Gemara asks: Is that to say based on this statement that Rabbi Yosei did not fulfill the mitzva of his wife’s conjugal rights, but only had relations with her five times? Rather, say it this way: I engaged in relations five times and I did so again, and the Sages said that one who seeks to father male offspring should engage in relations and do so again.
§ Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei for three straight days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? Vardimus said to him: Let the Master say what he, my father, is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: With regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we have a verse that teaches this halakha?
The Gemara immediately rejects this assumption: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer and holds that one may recite the morning Shema until the third hour of the day, and perhaps the halakha in the mishna was directed toward those whose practice was in accordance with the custom of the vatikin, pious individuals who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot, with regard to whom Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The vatikin would conclude the recitation of Shemawith sunrise.
The Gemara responds: This baraita does not establish a binding halakha. Rather, it taught that rule specifically with regard to those who are scrupulous in fulfillment of mitzvot [vatikin]. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Vatikin would finish reciting the morning Shemawith sunrise, but those who are not vatikin may recite their prayers later.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. Doesn’t the mishna teach: If he concluded? This indicates that after the fact, yes, one has fulfilled his obligation; ab initio, no, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: One begins with verses from the Torah and concludes with a single verse from the Prophets. Rabbi Yosei says: One concludes with a single verse from the Torah, and if he concluded with a single verse from the Prophets he has fulfilled his obligation. This is also taught in a baraita. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Pious individuals [vatikin], who were scrupulous in their performance of mitzvot, would conclude the series with a single verse from the Torah. Presumably, Rabbi Elazar followed the opinion of his father, Rabbi Yosei.
The Roman authorities then sent Vespasian Caesar against the Jews. He came and laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. There were at that time in Jerusalem these three wealthy people: Nakdimon ben Guryon, ben Kalba Savua, and ben Tzitzit HaKesat. The Gemara explains their names: Nakdimon ben Guryon was called by that name because the sun shined [nakad] on his behalf, as it is related elsewhere (see Ta’anit 19b) that the sun once continued to shine in order to prevent him from suffering a substantial loss. Ben Kalba Savua was called this because anyone who entered his house when he was hungry as a dog [kelev] would leave satiated [save’a]. Ben Tzitzit HaKesat was referred to by that name because his ritual fringes [tzitzit] dragged along on blankets [keset], meaning that he would not walk in the street with his feet on the ground, but rather they would place blankets beneath him. There are those who say that his seat [kiseh] was found among the nobles of Rome, meaning that he would sit among them.
§ The wife of Abaye had a certain daughter. Abaye said: She should get married to my relative. His wife said that she should get married to her relative. He said to his wife: Benefit from me should be forbidden to you, if you defy my will and marry her to your relative. She went and defied his will and married her to her relative. Abaye came before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him: If you had known that she would ultimately defy your will and marry her to her relative, would you have made the vow? He said: No. And Rav Yosef dissolved the vow for him because Abaye did not think that his wife would actually defy him, and he intended the vow only to serve as a threat.
Rav Adda said to Rav Ḥinnana from Sura: Was there not an incident like this involving the wife of Abba Mari, the Exilarch, who quarreled with her husband, and as a result she did not want to immerse in a ritual bath to become permitted to him; and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak went to appease her and to persuade her to immerse, and she said to him: What is there that can be done now? There is no reason for me to hurry and immerse now.
The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar Ḥana came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.
As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was dying, he said to his wife: I know that the Rabbis are angry at me for arresting several thieves who are their relatives, and therefore they will not properly tend to my burial. When I die, lay me in my attic and do not be afraid of me, i.e., do not fear that anything will happen to my corpse. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Rabbi Yonatan’s mother told me that the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, told her: I laid him in the attic for no less than eighteen years and for no more than twenty-two years.
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?
It was taught in the mishna: And one may not sweep out an oven or stove. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef taught before Rav Naḥman: And if it is not possible to bake unless one sweeps it out, it is permitted. The Gemara relates an incident with regard to the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya: A part of a brick fell into her oven on a Festival, preventing her from baking. Rav Ḥiyya said to her: See, you should know that I want good-quality bread. He thereby stated that it would be impossible unless she removed the brick, making it permissible for her to do so. Similarly, Rava said to his attendant: Roast for me a duck in an oven, and be careful not to singe it. He thereby implied that the attendant may remove all impediments from the oven in order to fulfill this requirement because otherwise it would not be possible to cook without singeing.
The Gemara relates: The wife of Rav Huna had a trial pending before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said: What should we do? If I will arise before her in deference to her status as the wife of a Torah scholar, the claims of the other litigant will be suppressed, as it will be mistaken as a display of preference for the wife of Rav Huna, since not everyone is aware that one is required to show deference to the wife of a Torah scholar. If I will not arise before her, that would run counter to the principle that in terms of deference, the status of the wife of a Ḥaver is like that of a Ḥaver, who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot. Rav Naḥman said to his attendant: Go outside and cause a duck to fly and cast it onto me, and in that way I will be forced to arise in a manner that will fulfill the obligation to rise, without intimidating the other litigant.
Similarly, the wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil, came before Rav Yosef. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me. He apportioned sustenance for her. She added: Apportion wine for me. He apportioned wine for her. She continued: Apportion silk garments for me. Rav Yosef said to her: Why do you need silk garments? She said to him: For you, for your friends, and for your friends’ friends. Even as a widow, I should not have to be ashamed in front of you and your colleagues.
The Gemara relates a similar incident: The wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, came before Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, for judgment. She said to him: Apportion sustenance for me. Rav Neḥemya apportioned a certain amount of sustenance for her. She said to him: Apportion wine for me as well. He apportioned wine for her. He said to her: I know that the residents of Meḥoza are accustomed to drinking wine, and therefore you, too, are entitled to wine, in accordance with the local custom.
And it is taught in a baraita that this is the basis for Rabbi Yehuda’s distinction: They told Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving an armed bandit [listim] who was taken out to be executed in the passage [megizat] of Cappadocia, and he said to those present: Go and tell the wife of Shimon the Priest that I killed her husband as I entered Lod. And some say that he said: As he entered Lod. And they married off his wife on the basis of this testimony. This implies that the court accepts testimony from the murderer himself. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: You derive proof from there? The case was that he said: I was with his murderers, but not that he himself murdered the woman’s husband.
And Rabbi Akiva also grew wealthy from the wife of Turnus Rufus, who converted and gave him her money, and from Ketia bar Shalom, a Roman minister who bequeathed his fortune to him.
There was an incident when the wife of Yosef the Priest died, and he said to her sister at the cemetery immediately after the funeral: Go and care for your sister’s children. In other words, he alluded that he wished to marry her immediately. But even though he married her immediately, he did not engage in sexual relations with her for a long time afterward. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: A long time? Rav Pappa said: After thirty days.
The Gemara continues to discuss Shabbat. Naomi advised Ruth: “And you shall bathe, and anoint yourself, and put on your robes, and go down to the threshing floor. Do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking” (Ruth 3:3). Rabbi Elazar said: These robes are Shabbat garments that Naomi told her to wear in honor of the occasion. Apropos the book of Ruth, the Gemara cites additional statements of Rabbi Elazar with regard to Ruth: “Give to the wise one and he will become wiser; let the righteous one know and he will learn more” (Proverbs 9:9). Rabbi Elazar said: This refers to Ruth the Moabite and Samuel of Rama, who received advice and added to it with their wisdom.
Rather, Rava said that the source of the halakha is the verse: “And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field” (Exodus 23:16). This verse is referring to grain from the time of sowing, i.e., from when the grain takes root. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, then even though the grain had not taken root it should be permitted by the omer offering. The verse mentions grain at the time of sowing, but it does not indicate that it is necessary for that grain to have taken root in order to be permitted by the omer. Rava said to Rav Pappa in reply: Wise one [sudni]! It is written: “In the field,” which indicates that the verse is referring to freshly sown produce that has become part of the field, i.e., it has taken root.
Rava said to Rav Pappa: Wise one [sudani]! No, won’t she be demeaned before him? It is embarrassing for her if she is awoken and has to think about whether or not she is pure. Rav Kahana says: I asked the members of the households, i.e., the wives, of Rav Pappa and of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: When the Sages, your husbands, came home from the study hall, did they require you to perform an examination prior to intercourse? And they said to me: No. The Gemara asks: But why ask their wives? Why not ask those Sages themselves? The Gemara answers: Perhaps they might rule leniently for others, while acting stringently with themselves. Therefore, their wives were asked, to determine how the Sages conducted themselves in their personal lives.
The Gemara relates: When Ravina arrived at Bei Meḥoza, the women of Bei Meḥoza came and tossed chains and bracelets before him so that he could distribute the jewelry as charity, and he accepted it from them. Rabba Tosfa’a said to Ravina: But isn’t it taught in the baraita: Charity collectors may accept something worth a small amount from women, but not something worth a large amount? How can you accept jewelry, which is worth a significant sum? Ravina said to him: For the residents of Meḥoza, these chains and bracelets are considered something small, and it is therefore permitted for me to accept them.
An attack by two dogs is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. Yadua the Babylonian says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If the two dogs came and attacked from one direction it is not considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, but if they attacked from two directions, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control, as the shepherd cannot protect his flock from both of them at once. If bandits came, this is considered a circumstance beyond one’s control. Likewise, with regard to an attack by a lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah, and a snake, these are each considered a circumstance beyond one’s control.
The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman. He ate bread, recited Grace after Meals, and gave the cup of blessing to Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to him: Master, please send the cup of blessing to Yalta, my wife. Ulla responded to him: There is no need, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: The fruit of a woman’s body is blessed only from the fruit of a man’s body, as it is stated: “And He will love you, and bless you, and make you numerous, and He will bless the fruit of your body” (Deuteronomy 7:13). The Gemara infers: “He will bless the fruit of her body” was not stated. Rather, “He will bless the fruit of your [masculine singular] body.” For his wife to be blessed with children, it is sufficient to give the cup to Rav Naḥman.
The Gemara relates that meanwhile Yalta heard Ulla’s refusal to send her the cup of blessing. Yalta was the daughter of the Exilarch and was accustomed to being treated with deference, so she arose in a rage, entered the wine-storage, and broke four hundred barrels of wine. Afterward, Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master send her another cup. Ulla sent Yalta a different cup with a message saying that all of the wine in this barrel is wine of blessing; although you did not drink from the cup of blessing itself, you may at least drink from the barrel from which the cup of blessing was poured. She sent him a stinging response: From itinerant peddlers, Ulla traveled regularly from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and back, come meaningless words, and from rags come lice.
Rather, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and he said: At the time that the animal crouches to give birth, those tending to the animal soak two swatches of wool in oil, and place one on the animal’s forehead and the other on its womb so that it will be warmed.Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Naḥman said to him: If so, you turned the animal into Yalta, my wife, who descended from the house of the Exilarch. That is treatment fit for her, not for an animal.
Abaye responded: He is Yannai he is Yoḥanan. In other words, from its inception, the entire Hasmonean dynasty had the same positive attitude toward the Sadducees, and there was no distinction between Yoḥanan Hyrcanus and Alexander Yannai. Yoḥanan the High Priest had Sadducee leanings from the outset. Rava said: Yannai is distinct and Yoḥanan is distinct. They did not share the same position in this regard. Yannai was wicked from the outset and Yoḥanan was righteous from the outset. If so, it works out well according to Abaye’s opinion; however, according to Rava’s opinion, it is difficult. How could Yoḥanan, a righteous individual, have changed and turned wicked?
They gave Shimon ben Shata? a cup of wine over which to recite Grace after Meals. He said: How shall I recite the blessing? Shall I say: Blessed is He from Whom Yannai and his companions have eaten? I have not eaten anything. He drank that cup of wine. They gave him another cup, and he recited the Grace after Meals blessing. By drinking the first cup he joined the other diners and was therefore eligible to recite Grace after Meals on their behalf.
The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states: “But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10). Until when must the scapegoat be alive? Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the blood is disqualified.
The Gemara continues to narrate the incident: Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shata? said to him: Yannai the king, stand on your feet and witnesses will testify against you. And it is not before us that you are standing, to give us honor, but it is before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that you are standing, as it is stated: “Then both the people, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai the king said to him: I will not stand when you alone say this to me, but according to what your colleagues say, and if the whole court tells me, I will stand.
The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar from the village of Barkai? Yannai the king, and the queen were sitting and discussing food. The king said that goat meat is better food than lamb meat, and the queen said lamb meat is the better food. They said: Let us ask Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he is the High Priest and is very familiar with various dishes.
When Rav Safra again ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zerika once more and asked him about liver cooked with another piece of meat. Rabbi Zerika said to him: You need not ask this question either, as I and Yannai, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at the house of Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before us the windpipe of an animal with all the parts attached to it, i.e., the lungs, heart, and liver, all of which had been cooked together, and we ate it. This proves that the blood emitted from the liver does not render prohibited other pieces of meat cooked with it.
And Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan further asked: With regard to that which Rav Yehuda said: Above means above the water, we can inquire: What is different about a case where the partition is actually above, i.e., near the rim of the cistern that led Rav Yehuda to say that one may not draw water in that case? It is because he was concerned lest the water of the two courtyards become intermingled beneath the partition. However, even if the partition is above the water below the rim of the cistern, the water of the two courtyards will also become intermingled beneath it. Abaye said to him: Haven’t you heard that which Ya’akov from Karḥina taught: The ends of the reeds of a partition must be immersed at least a handbreadth into the water, so that they divide the water in the cistern?
And we further learned in the mishna: One may place an egg in a mustard strainer on Shabbat in order to separate the yolk from the egg-white. The Sage, Ya’akov Korḥa, taught a reason for this:
Ya’akov Korḥa taught a baraita: From when are pigeons fit? It is from when ye’alu. He teaches the baraitaand he states its explanation: The reference is to that which is stated: “Its fledglings will suck up [ye’alu] blood” (Job 39:30). When is that? Abaye said: It is from the stage when one plucks a feather from it and blood emerges.
§ The mishna teaches that if he was digging a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut downward and the wood is his. The Sage Ya’akov of Hadeyyav raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: To whom does the wood belong? The mishna says that the wood is his, without specifying to which of the two individuals this refers, the owner of the tree or the owner of the land.
and you derived pleasure from it, and because of this you were held responsible by Heaven. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, you are right, as you have reminded me that once I was walking in the upper marketplace of Tzippori, and I found a man who was one of the students of Jesus the Nazarene, and his name was Ya’akov of Kefar Sekhanya. He said to me: It is written in your Torah: “You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). What is the halakha: Is it permitted to make from the payment to a prostitute for services rendered a bathroom for a High Priest in the Temple? And I said nothing to him in response.
Ya’akov of Mina said to Rav Yehuda: Corresponding to whom were these six readers on Yom Kippur instituted? Rav Yehuda said to him: The number six corresponds to the six people who stood to Ezra’s right and the six people who stood to his left, as it is stated: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a platform of wood, which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand, and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadanah, Zechariah, Meshullam” (Nehemiah 8:4).
The baraita relates an incident illustrating this point. There was an incident involving ben Dama, son of Rabbi Yishmael’s sister, in which a snake bit him. And following the attack, Ya’akov of the village of Sekhanya, who was a heretic, a disciple of Jesus the Nazarene, came to treat him, but Rabbi Yishmael did not let him do so. And ben Dama said to him: Rabbi Yishmael, my brother, let him treat me, and I will be healed by him. And I will cite a verse from the Torah to prove that accepting medical treatment from a heretic is permitted in this situation. But ben Dama did not manage to complete the statement before his soul departed from his body and he died.
The Gemara questions this: But Rabbi Abbahu was an important person, and yet Ya’akov the heretic placed upon his leg a salve that was actually a poison. And if it were not for Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who licked his leg to remove the poison, his leg would have had to be amputated. Apparently, Ya’akov the heretic attempted to kill Rabbi Abbahu despite the fact that Rabbi Abbahu was an important person.
§ Concerning the halakha that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal, e.g., a deer, is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood.
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There, the baraita that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to the First Temple, where this halakha was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. Here, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple, where this halakha was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. As Rav Asi said: The wealthy Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half-se’a of dinars in to King Yannai for the fact that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.
MISHNA: If a priest betrothed a widow and was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, he may marry her. And there was an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, a widow, and the king subsequently appointed him to be High Priest, and he nevertheless married her. Conversely, in the case of a widow waiting for her yavam who happened before a common priest, i.e., the priest was her yavam, and he was subsequently appointed to be High Priest, then even if he had already performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, because she is a widow.
The mishna related an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king appointed him, yes, but not that he was worthy of being appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] full of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: It was not Yehoshua ben Zeiruz; rather, it was Yehoshua ben Kefusai, Rabbi Akiva’s son-in-law, and he said: In a case like this, didn’t Rabbi Akiva hold one liable to bring a sin-offering? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Was Rabbi Akiva exacting to that extent? If so, it is preferable to avoid questionable practices. Immediately, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lowered his cloak from his shoulders. When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda came, he said: This is not what happened, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself did not wear his cloak folded up on his shoulders on Shabbat. Rather it was stated that Rabbi was asked, meaning that this question came before him, and he wanted to rule leniently, until he was informed that some of the greatest Sages of the generation ruled stringently.
The Gemara relates: A certain heretic would distress Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi by incessantly challenging him as to the meaning of verses. One day, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi took a rooster and placed it between the legs of the bed upon which he sat, and looked at it. He thought: When that moment of God’s anger arrives, I will curse the heretic and be rid of him. When that moment of God’s anger arrived, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi fell asleep and missed the opportunity to curse the heretic.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
The Sages taught: It should always be the left, weaker, hand that pushes another away and the right, stronger, hand that draws him near. In other words, even when a student is rebuffed, he should be given the opportunity to return. This is not like Elisha, who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed Jesus the Nazarene, one of his students, away with both hands.
The Gemara returns to the incident in which Yehoshua ben Peraḥya turned away Jesus the Nazarene: What is this incident? When King Yannai was killing the Sages, Shimon ben Shata? was hidden by his sister, Yannai’s wife, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya went and fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made between Yannai and the Sages, Shimon ben Shata? sent him the following letter: From myself, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt. My sister, my husband dwells within you, and I am sitting desolate. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: I can learn from it that there is peace, and I can return.
Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to the flour between the inside and the outside. What is the status of this flour? Rav Yoḥanan said: Yehoshua ben Uza’a then resolved his own dilemma: The flour that is between is doubtful, and should be treated as questionable in status.
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: It was not Yehoshua ben Zeiruz; rather, it was Yehoshua ben Kefusai, Rabbi Akiva’s son-in-law, and he said: In a case like this, didn’t Rabbi Akiva hold one liable to bring a sin-offering? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Was Rabbi Akiva exacting to that extent? If so, it is preferable to avoid questionable practices. Immediately, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lowered his cloak from his shoulders. When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda came, he said: This is not what happened, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself did not wear his cloak folded up on his shoulders on Shabbat. Rather it was stated that Rabbi was asked, meaning that this question came before him, and he wanted to rule leniently, until he was informed that some of the greatest Sages of the generation ruled stringently.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: On one occasion, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out into a field, and the two sides of his cloak were resting on his shoulders. Yehoshua ben Zeiruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In a case like this, didn’t Rabbi Meir hold one liable to bring a sin-offering? Rabbi said to him: Was Rabbi Meir exacting to that extent, i.e., he considered wearing a garment in this fashion to be carrying on Shabbat? If so, it is preferable to avoid questionable practices; immediately Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lowered his cloak from his shoulders.
§ We learned in the mishna: And he may not feed the animal of one for whom benefit from him is forbidden, whether it is a kosher animal or whether it is a non-kosher animal. It is taught in a baraita that Yehoshua of Uzza says: One who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to another may feed the other person’s Canaanite slaves and maidservants; however, he may not feed his animal, whether it is a non-kosher animal or whether it is a kosher animal. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the distinction? The Gemara explains: His Canaanite slaves and maidservants are designated for labor, whereas an animal is designated for fattening. The one bound by the vow derives benefit from the other person feeding the kosher animal when he eats it and derives benefit from the other person feeding the non-kosher animal when he sells it to a gentile.
If we say we learned it from that which is taught in the following baraita, it is difficult. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei said that Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Akiva, asked of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Sages say that the different shades of leprous marks are two types that are four, and proceed to specify their names? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But if not that, what else could they say? Rabbi Yehoshua answered him: Let them say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure.
In this baraita Rabbi Yehuda is described as head of the speakers in every place. The Gemara asks: And why did they call him head of the speakers in every place? The Gemara relates that this resulted due to an incident that took place when Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon were sitting, and Yehuda, son of converts, sat beside them. Rabbi Yehuda opened and said: How pleasant are the actions of this nation, the Romans, as they established marketplaces, established bridges, and established bathhouses. Rabbi Yosei was silent. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai responded and said: Everything that they established, they established only for their own purposes. They established marketplaces, to place prostitutes in them; bathhouses, to pamper themselves; and bridges, to collect taxes from all who pass over them. Yehuda, son of converts, went and related their statements to his household, and those statements continued to spread until they were heard by the monarchy. They ruled and said: Yehuda, who elevated the Roman regime, shall be elevated and appointed as head of the Sages, the head of the speakers in every place. Yosei, who remained silent, shall be exiled from his home in Judea as punishment, and sent to the city of Tzippori in the Galilee. And Shimon, who denounced the government, shall be killed.
A certain Elder said in ridicule and surprise: Ben Yoḥai purified the cemetery. Rabbi Shimon got angry and said to him: Had you not been with us, and even had you been with us and were not counted with us in rendering this ruling, what you say is fine. You could have said that you were unaware of my intention or that you did not agree or participate in this decision. Now that you were with us and were counted with us in rendering this ruling, you will cause people to say that Sages are unwilling to cooperate with one another. They will say: If competing prostitutes still apply makeup to each other to help one another look beautiful, all the more so that Torah scholars should cooperate with each other. He directed his eyes toward him and the Elder died. Rabbi Shimon went out to the marketplace and he saw Yehuda, son of converts, who was the cause of this entire incident. Rabbi Shimon, said: This one still has a place in the world? He directed his eyes toward him and turned him into a pile of bones.
We learned in the mishna: If one wrote over other writing he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna whose opinion is cited in the mishna? Rav Ḥisda said: This halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: If one needed to write the Tetragrammaton, the name of God, in a Torah scroll, and became confused and intended instead to write the name Yehuda, and while intending to write Yehuda he erred and omitted the letter dalet, thereby writing the name of God, he should do the following. He passes a quill with more ink over the name and sanctifies it, i.e., he writes it with the intention required when writing a holy name. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Even if he adds ink over what he wrote, this writing of God’s name is not ideal. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, writing over other writing is considered writing anew.
After mentioning halakhot relating to customs, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. If matters are permitted but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to permit these actions in their presence. Rav Ḥisda said: We are dealing with Samaritans, not with Jews. The Gemara is surprised at this: And doesn’t this apply to everyone? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita to the contrary? Two brothers may bathe together, and there is no concern that doing so is immodest or will lead to sinful thoughts. However, the custom was that two brothers do not bathe together in the city of Kabul (see I Kings 9:13). And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who bathed together in Kabul, and the entire city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. Hillel stole away and went out to the outer chamber and did not want to tell them: You are permitted to do so. He preferred to obey the city residents rather than rule it permitted for two brothers to bathe together.
Similarly, one may go out with wide shoes that resemble slippers on Shabbat; however, one does not go out with wide shoes in the city of Birei. And there was an incident involving Yehuda and Hillel, sons of Rabban Gamliel, who went out with wide shoes in Birei, and the people of the city denounced them and said: In all our days we have never seen that type of conduct. And Yehuda and Hillel removed their shoes, and gave them to their gentile servants, and did not want to tell the residents of the city: You are permitted to go out with wide shoes on Shabbat.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the laws of Yom Kippur: Yehuda bar Gerogarot taught: It is prohibited to sit on damp clay on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This prohibition applies only when the clay is dripping wet, when one feels its wetness when touching it. Abaye said in clarification: It must be dripping wet enough to make something else wet. Rav Yehuda said: One is permitted to cool off with fruit on Yom Kippur, and it is not considered bathing. Similarly, when Rav Yehuda suffered from the heat on Yom Kippur he cooled off by putting a squash on himself.
The Gemara relates that three Sages, Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Aḥa of Difti ate bread together. None among them was greater than the other in either age or wisdom, rendering him the obvious choice to recite the blessing on their behalf. They sat down and raised a dilemma: That which we learned in our mishna: Three people who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals, does that apply only when there is a great man among them, but where they are on a par with each other, perhaps separating and reciting independent blessings is preferable?
The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, having arranged for his son to marry into the family of Abba of Sura, went to supervise the writing of the bride’s marriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heard that Rav Pappa was coming, and came out to present himself before him, in honor of his arrival. When they came to the entrance of Abba of Sura’s house, Yehuda bar Mareimar took his leave of him, as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa said to him: Let the Master enter inside with me.
The Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Mareimar would say to his attendant: Go hire workers for me and say to them: Your wages are upon the employer. Yehuda bar Mareimar instructed the attendant to do this in order to avoid violating the prohibition of delaying payment of wages. Mareimar and Mar Zutra would hire workers for each other for the same reason.
§ This is similar to that incident involving Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba, who was the Bible teacher of the sons of Reish Lakish, and some say that he was the Mishna teacher of the son of Reish Lakish. His child died. On the first day, Reish Lakish did not go to comfort him. The next day, he took Yehuda bar Naḥmani, his disseminator, with him to comfort Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba. Reish Lakish said to his disseminator: Stand and say a matter of comfort with regard to the death of the child. He began and said: “And the Lord saw it and He abhorred them, due to the provocation of His sons and His daughters” (Deuteronomy 32:19). A generation in which the fathers abhor the Holy One, Blessed be He, He is angered at their sons and their daughters, and they die when they are small.
In the house of the Nasi, they appointed a judge who was not learned. This judge said to Yehuda bar Naḥmani, who was the interpreter of Reish Lakish and whose role was to repeat and explain the Sage’s lectures: Stand over me as an interpreter, and I will lecture. Yehuda bar Naḥmani arose and bent over him in the conventional manner, to hear the judge’s words. And, being ignorant, the judge did not say anything to him.
In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed; Rav Hamnuna said to him: Do you wish to bring suffering upon yourself; as it is stated: “For that which I did fear is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of has overtaken me” (Job 3:25)? He responded: Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? Rav Hamnuna answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Neḥemya said before Rabbi Tarfon: No, one cannot compare the two situations. If you said that this is the halakha with regard to before the omer sacrifice, this is because at that stage there are no circumstances in which the new crop’s general prohibition was permitted, even with regard to an ordinary person; shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to before the sacrifice of the two loaves, when the new crop’s general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person? The new crop ingredient in the meal offering is at least permitted in consumption after the omer is brought. Therefore, the meal offerings that were brought after the omer but before the two loaves are fit.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
§ The Gemara recounts a related incident: There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you. The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said. Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar. They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves. Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew.
MISHNA:Rabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a, in Babylonia, to intercalate the year, I found the Sage Neḥemya of Beit D’li. He said to me: I heard that the Sages in Eretz Yisrael do not allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava. And I told him: That is so. He said to me: Tell the Sages in my name: You know that the country is confounded by army troops, and I cannot come myself. I declare that I received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, that the court may allow a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness.
And they also wished to say thus: Alas, the pious man, alas, the humble man, about Yehuda ben Bava, in their eulogy for him, but the hour was torn, i.e., the opportunity was lost, as one does not eulogize those executed by the government. As will be explained (14a), Yehuda ben Bava was executed by the government.
What did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, between two large cities, and between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he not endanger anyone not directly involved, and there he ordained five elders. And they were: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rav Avya adds that Rabbi Neḥemya was also among those ordained. This incident indicates that ordination can be performed by a single Sage.
It was taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Dortai separated himself from the other Rabbis, he and Dortai his son, and went and settled in the south so that he would not be obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, seeing that he was at a great distance from Jerusalem. He did this because he disagreed with the Rabbis with regard to the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, which in their view does not override Shabbat. He said: If Elijah will come and say to the Jewish people: For what reason did you not sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on Shabbat, what will they say to him? I am astounded at the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, who are great sages and great expositors of the Torah, and yet they did not tell the Jewish people that even the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth overrides Shabbat.
The Gemara returns to the topic of fasting for rain. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed a fast and prayed for mercy, but rain did not come. He said, lamenting: How great is the difference between the prophet Samuel of Rama, for whom rain fell even when he prayed for it in summer, and myself, Yehuda ben Gamliel. Woe to the generation that is stuck with this leadership; woe to him in whose days this has occurred. He grew upset, and rain came.
Now there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you, i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron. The Gemara explains this last comment: As they would say that Yannai’s mother was taken captive in Modi’in, and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a Ḥalal. And the matter was investigated and was not discovered, i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. And the Sages of Israel were expelled in the king’s rage, due to this rumor.
And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That disciple was named Yehuda ben Gurya, and he was three parasangs away from Rabbi Eliezer. Apparently, one is liable for the death penalty even if he did not issue his ruling in his teacher’s presence.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps it is my student Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa. And if so, all of his actions are undertaken for the sake of Heaven; he is not acting out of haughtiness. When they reached him and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw him, he said to him: If you were not Yehuda ben Kanosa I would have cut off your legs with iron shears, i.e., I would have excommunicated you for your impudence.
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to an ox whose owner became a deaf-mute, or whose owner became an imbecile, or whose owner went overseas, if the ox gores, Yehuda ben Nakosa said that Sumakhos said: It retains its status of innocuousness until the court renders it forewarned in the presence of the owner. And the Rabbis say: The court appoints stewards for them, and the ox is rendered forewarned in the presence of the stewards.
If the deaf-mute regained his hearing, or the imbecile became halakhically competent, or the minor reached majority, or its owner came back from overseas, Yehuda ben Nakosa said that Sumakhos said: The ox has reverted to its previous status of innocuousness, until it is rendered forewarned in the presence of the owner. Rabbi Yosei said: The ox retains its status of being forewarned.
Rabbi Tarfon was silent, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya’s face brightened. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yehuda, has your face brightened because you answered the elder? I will be astonished if the days of your life will be lengthy. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, said: That period in which that interaction occurred was half a month before Passover. When I ascended again to the study hall for the festival of Shavuot, I asked about him: Where is Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya? And they said to me: He passed away and left this world.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya, libations from first fruits that one brought before the omer offering is sacrificed should be valid. The reason is that the prohibition of the new crop does not apply to fruits at all, and therefore they are never prohibited to ordinary people. When the mishna states that first fruits are prohibited it is referring to first fruits of grain, not the fruit of a tree. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that libations from first fruits brought before the omer offering are valid? Why would one think that they should not be valid?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In what way is a sale different from a gift, and in what way is a gift different from a sale? Why does the mishna distinguish between the two with regard to what is retained by the prior owner? Yehuda ben Nekosa explained before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The difference between the cases is that this one, the seller, specified that certain items were not included in the sale, and that one, the donor, did not specify.
Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?
Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of a corpse.
Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta’anit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.
And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil, which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;
As it is taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-eighth of Adar good tidings came to the Jews, that they would not be restricted from Torah study, and they declared this date a commemorative day. The baraita proceeds to describe the events of this day. As on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and sought the advice of a certain Roman matron [matronita] whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
GEMARA:The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say the opposite: Yehuda ben Tabbai was deputy Nasi and Shimon ben Shata? was the Nasi.
Hearing this, Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule on any matter of law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shata?, as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear what Ulla said explicitly: One removes his phylacteries when new people come to console him, and he dons them again when they leave, even if he must don and remove them a hundred times. This is also taught in a baraita: Yehuda ben Teima says: He removes his phylacteries and dons them again, even if he must do so a hundred times.
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.
they did so for the gain of the house, as more food is available when he brings produce home, but in order for him to sell it they did not institute their decree? Two opinions were stated with regard to this issue: Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar said in the name of Rava: What he did is done, i.e., takes effect. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He did not do anything.
Rav Pappa said: This statement of Yehuda Mar bar Mareimar was not stated explicitly in Rava’s name. Rather, it was stated from an inference based on an incident that occurred in which a certain woman brought in for her husband two maidservants as part of her dowry. The man went and married another woman in addition to the first. He subsequently brought in to the second wife one of the maidservants to attend to her needs.
to Bei Torta. Along the way, thieves encountered him, and said to him: Where are you going? Rav Menashe said to them: To Pumbedita, which was farther away than Bei Torta. When he arrived at Bei Torta, he separated from the thieves, who had planned to steal from him. They said to him: You are a student of Yehuda the swindler! Rav Menashe said to them: Do you know him so well that you can accuse him of swindling others? May it be God’s will that these people be subject to Rav Yehuda’s ban of excommunication.
Rav Tavut said: Rava acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As when Rami bar Yeḥezkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that Rav Yehuda, my brother, formulated in the name of Rav. Although Rav holds that a perforation of any part of the entrance of the gullet renders an animal a tereifa, this is not because it is a location fit for slaughter. Rather, this is what Rav said: The Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter. By inference, one learns that the entrance of the gullet is not a location fit for slaughter. And nevertheless, he says that a perforation in any amount renders the animal a tereifa.
It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.
When I was in Babylonia, I said with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: If Yom Kippur occurred on Shabbat eve, they would not sound the shofar as they did every Friday to herald the start of Shabbat; and if Yom Kippur occurred at the conclusion of Shabbat, they would not recite havdala to mark the end of the sanctity of Shabbat and the start of the sanctity of Yom Kippur, is a statement accepted by all. When I went to Eretz Yisrael, I found Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, who sat and said: This baraitais in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it equates the sanctity of Yom Kippur with that of Shabbat. As, if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, then, since Rabbi Yishmael said that fats from Shabbat are offered on Yom Kippur, let them sound the shofarso that the priests will know that the fats from Shabbat are offered on Yom Kippur and they may begin offering them (Rav Hai Gaon). And I said to him: You cannot prove this from here, because priests are vigilant and can be trusted to know this on their own, and there is no need to sound the shofar.
The Gemara asks: One should apply here the principle that in the case of any offering that is meant to be partly burned on the flames of the altar, one who burns the remainder of the offering is subject to the prohibition: Do not burn. This prohibition is derived from the verse: “You shall not burn of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said that the priest burns the remainder not as an offering but for the purpose of firewood. This is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to those parts of an offering which may not be burned, for a pleasing aroma you may not burn them; however, you may burn them on the altar for the purpose of firewood.
The Gemara asks: And let them also say the third verse that appears right after the first two blessings: “The Lord shall bless you out of Zion” (Psalms 134:3), as it is written in that same matter. Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says: Since they began with blessings of the Holy One, Blessed be He, they must end with a blessing of the Holy One, Blessed be He, rather than reciting this verse, which is a blessing for the Jewish people.
As we learned in a mishna: On that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came before the students in the study hall and he said to them: What is my legal status in terms of entering into the congregation of Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman?
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were twins, but one of them was fully developed after nine months of pregnancy and one was fully developed at the beginning of the seventh month, and they were born two months apart. Yehudit, the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, had acute birthing pain from these unusual deliveries. She changed her clothes to prevent Rabbi Ḥiyya from recognizing her and came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask him a halakhic question. She said: Is a woman commanded to be fruitful and multiply? He said to her: No. She went and drank an infertility potion.
Rav Ḥisda explained: Is this not similar to the case of Yehudit, wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who would have painful childbirths and therefore wished to leave Rabbi Ḥiyya? She said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: My mother told me: When you were young your father accepted betrothal on your behalf from another man, which would render Yehudit forbidden to Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said to her: It is not in your mother’s power to render you forbidden to me, as this testimony is insufficient.
The Gemara relates another incident: A man called Yeimar bar Ḥashu was owed money by a certain man who died and left behind a boat. Yeimar bar Ḥashu said to his agent: Go and seize the boat for me. The agent went and seized it. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, encountered him. They said to him: You are seizing assets for a creditor in a situation where your action will cause a disadvantage for others, as the debtor owed money to other people as well. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one who seizes assets for a creditor in a situation that will result in a disadvantage for others
The Gemara asks: And how far must one distance his wall if it is perpendicular to the other wall? Yeiva, the father-in-law of Ashyan bar Nidbakh, says in the name of Rav: As much as the full width of the window. The Gemara asks: But why is this sufficient? Can’t he still peer into the window if he is that close? Rav Zevid says: This is referring to one who slopes his wall, i.e., he fashions an incline on the upper surface of the wall so that he will not be able to stand on top of it and look through the window.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? If it was raised with regard to acquiring the property of a convert, this is precisely the same as the ruling cited by Yirmeya Bira’a, as Yirmeya Bira’a said that Rav Yehuda said: If one sowed turnip seeds in cracks which he found in land that had belonged to a convert, and another Jew came and plowed the ground a little, the latter one, the one who plowed, acquires the property, and the first one does not acquire it.
Similarly, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the High Priest, said: Once, on Yom Kippur, I entered the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, to offer incense, and in a vision I saw Akatriel Ya, the Lord of Hosts, one of the names of God expressing His ultimate authority, seated upon a high and exalted throne (see Isaiah 6). And He said to me: Yishmael, My son, bless Me. I said to Him the prayer that God prays: “May it be Your will that Your mercy overcome Your anger, and may Your mercy prevail over Your other attributes, and may You act toward Your children with the attribute of mercy, and may You enter before them beyond the letter of the law.” The Holy One, Blessed be He, nodded His head and accepted the blessing. This event teaches us that you should not take the blessing of an ordinary person lightly. If God asked for and accepted a man’s blessing, all the more so that a man must value the blessing of another man.
The Sages taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel say: One may recite Shema in any situation: Standing and reciting, sitting and reciting, reclining and reciting, walking and reciting and even working and reciting. And in the Toseftaan incident is related where two tanna’im, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who were both disciples of Beit Hillel, were reclining at a meal in one place together with their students, and Rabbi Yishmael was reclined as was the customary dining position, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was upright. When the time to recite the evening Shema arrived, Rabbi Elazar reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, while Rabbi Yishmael sat upright to recite Shema. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya appeared to take offense, and said to Rabbi Yishmael: Yishmael, my brother, I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is comparable to a situation where one to whom people say as a compliment: Your beard is full and suits you. That man says to them: May it be against those who shave and destroy their beards, i.e., the only reason I grow my beard is to irritate those who cut their own (Rashba). You are the same. As long as I am upright, you are reclined, and now when I reclined lauding your conduct and emulating you, you sat upright as if to demonstrate that whatever I do, you do the opposite.
The Mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against deriving benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into the house of Rabbi Yishmael and he beautified her. When she was later brought before the one who took the vow, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, did you vow that you would not derive benefit from this woman? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yishmael permitted her to him, as he demonstrated that the vow had been made in error.
Rava said: Even though they prohibited reading by candlelight due to a decree lest they adjust the wick, if he is an important person, it is permitted, as even on weekdays he is not accustomed to adjust a lamp that is dirty with oil. The Gemara raises an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: One may not read a book on Shabbat by the light of the lamp, lest he adjust it. The Tosefta relates that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: I will read and will not adjust, as I will certainly not forget that it is Shabbat. However, once he read a book by candlelight and he sought to adjust the wick. He said: How great are the words of the Sages, who would say that one may not read by candlelight, as even a person like me sought to adjust the wick. Rabbi Natan says: That was not the way it happened. Rather, he read and actually adjusted the wick, and he wrote afterward in his notebook [pinkas]: I, Yishmael ben Elisha, read and adjusted a lamp on Shabbat. When the Temple will be rebuilt I will bring a fat sin-offering as atonement for this sin. This proves that even an important person like Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is liable to adjust the wick. Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha is different, since with regard to the study of Torah, he comports himself like a simple man with no air of importance, but generally, an important person would not dirty his hands and adjust the wick.
But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that is a reference to the Second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which over three hundred High Priests served. In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, deduct from the figure of four hundred and twenty years forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty years that Yoḥanan the High Priest served, ten years that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven years that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, go out and calculate from this point forward and conclude: Each and every one of the remaining High Priests did not complete his year in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.
And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, although the members of this family were violent. And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.
§ The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to fat that is on the abomasum, the priests accustomed themselves to consider it permitted, and they would eat it along with the rest of the abomasum, which was given to them from non-sacred animals as one of the gifts of the priesthood. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that he says in the name of his forefathers. And since there is a disagreement between the Sages with regard to this issue, your mnemonic to remember the lenient opinion is the idiom: Yishmael the priest generally helps the priests.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: For one who says to his wife: Your handicraft is konam upon me, or it is konam upon my mouth, or it is konam to my mouth, it is prohibited to benefit from her handicraft. Yishmael, a man of Kefar Yamma, and some say, a man of Kefar Dima, raised a dilemma with regard to an onion that one uprooted during the Sabbatical Year, which was therefore sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and he then planted it during the eighth year, and its growths that developed in the eighth year exceeded its principal original Sabbatical-Year onion. And this is the dilemma that he raised: Its eighth-year growth is permitted, and its Sabbatical-Year principal is prohibited. Since its growth exceeded its principal, do those permitted growths neutralize the prohibition of the onion, or do they not? Yishmael came and raised the dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and he did not have an answer readily available.
Abdon, the shortened form of the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s student and attendant, Abba Yudan, said to him: Who is that individual stepping over the heads of a sacred people, for it appeared to him as an act of disrespect to those sitting that Rabbi Yishmael stepped over their heads. He said to him: I am Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who came to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Abdon said to him: But are you fit to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for it seems that you are showing disrespect to others in order to accomplish it?
The fourth cry was: Open the gates and expel Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he honors himself and desecrates items consecrated to Heaven. What would he do to deserve such a reputation? He would wrap silk [shira’ei] over his hands and perform the Temple service, as he was unwilling to dirty his hands.
The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar from the village of Barkai? Yannai the king, and the queen were sitting and discussing food. The king said that goat meat is better food than lamb meat, and the queen said lamb meat is the better food. They said: Let us ask Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he is the High Priest and is very familiar with various dishes.
Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: The people in the Temple courtyard all cried four cries, as they were in agreement over various issues (Pardes Rimonim). The first cry was: Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. And an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates the items consecrated to Heaven. Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would wrap his hands in silk [shirai] and perform the service. This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it.
They said about Yoḥanan ben Narbbai that he and his household would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty se’a of doves for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yoḥanan ben Narbbai there was no leftover sacrificial meat in the Temple, as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question,
he signaled contemptuously with his hand and said: If goat is better, let it be sacrificed as the daily offering. The daily offering is a lamb, proving that its meat is preferable to that of a goat. The king said: Since he not only disagrees with me but has no reverence for the monarchy, as evident from his contempt, sever his right hand. He gave a bribe and the official severed his left hand. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him and had the official sever his right hand as well. Rav Yosef said: Blessed is God Who took retribution [mitarpesei] from Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai in this world and did not wait to punish him more severely in the next world. His punishment fit the crime; because he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood and was overzealous in keeping his hands clean, both his hands were severed.
They asked him, and he said to them: If goat meat were better, it would be sacrificed as the daily offering. The fact that the daily offering is lamb proves that its meat is preferable to that of goat. As he spoke, he signaled contemptuously with his hand. The king said to his attendants: Since he signaled contemptuously with his hand, sever his right hand. Yissakhar gave a bribe, and the official severed his left hand instead. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him, and said: Let the official sever his right hand as well. Rav Yosef said: Blessed is the Merciful One, who took retribution [lematrapsei] on Yissakhar of the village of Barkai. His punishment fit his crime; since he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood, both his hands were severed.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is an example of desecration of God’s name? For example, someone like me, if I would walk four cubits without Torah and without phylacteries, and the onlookers did not know that it is only on account of my body’s weakness, that would be a desecration of God’s name. Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Yannai said: Any case when one’s friends are embarrassed on account of his reputation, meaning his friends are embarrassed due to things they hear about him, this is a desecration of God’s name. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One creates a profanation of God’s name, for example, when people say about him: May his Master forgive so-and-so for the sins he has done.
§ The Gemara relates a story that deals with the permission of a woman to remarry. Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died along the way. They sent this message from Spain: Yitzḥak the Exilarch, son of the sister of Rav Beivai, was walking from Cortva to Spain and died. The Gemara asks: Are we concerned about the possibility of two men named Yitzḥak or not? Perhaps there is someone else with the same name, and therefore the mention of his name is not a sufficiently distinguishing mark. Abaye said: We are concerned about this possibility. Rava said: We are not concerned.
Rava said: Is there anyone who performs an action like this and endangers himself by marrying such a woman? Wasn’t it he, Abaye, who said that Avin is reliable but Yitzḥak the Red, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, is not reliable? He proceeds to explain the difference between them: Avin returns to Eretz Yisrael and hears whether the Sages there rescind their previous rulings, whereas Yitzḥak the Red does not return to Eretz Yisrael and never finds out if the Sages there rescind their rulings. And furthermore, say that they disagree with regard to whether a presumption is established by two or by three deaths due to circumcision, but do they necessarily argue with regard to marriage?
Come and hear a proof from a baraita: And Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag already sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in the city of Netzivin: I heard about you that you say that the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira sent back this reply to him: And do you not say so? I know about you that you are an expert in many areas of Torah; do you not know how to teachhalakhotbased on an a fortiori inference?
The Gemara discusses a similar scenario: If one threw a child from a roof and a forewarned ox came along and impaled the child on its horns and the child died, the question of whether or not the owner of the ox is liable to pay ransom is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse: “He shall give for the redemption of his life” (Exodus 21:30), indicates that he must pay the value of the injured party, i.e., the one who was killed. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: He must pay the value of the one responsible for the damage. Since the child that was thrown off the roof had no monetary value at the time he was gored by the ox, as it was as if he were already dead, the Rabbis would exempt the owner of the ox from paying ransom. According to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, the owner of the ox must pay his own value to the family of the victim.
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that ritual fringes have a required measure? And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: “That they prepare for themselves strings” (Numbers 15:38). Strings are nothing other than what emerges from the corner of the garment, and the term strings indicates only that there must be strings of any length. And it already occurred that the elders of Beit Shammai and the elders of Beit Hillel ascended to the attic of Yoḥanan ben Beteira, and they discussed the matter and said: Ritual fringes have no measure. Similarly, a lulav has no measure.
The Gemara asks: But the words: “Shall see” and “shall appear” are written in an identical matter, and nevertheless the Sages disagree about which reading is authoritative. As it is taught in a baraita: Yoḥanan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals, as it is stated: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [yera’eh] before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera’eh, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one’s eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes.
As it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [yera’eh] before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera’eh, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one’s eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. This is one possible explanation for what is added by the general statement of the mishna in Ḥagiga 2a, according to Ravina.
The Gemara notes: And this is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan ben Dehavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: “Three occasions in the year all your males will appear [yera’e] before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). Since there are no vowels in the text, this can be read as: All your males will see [yireh] the Lord God. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both one’s eyes, so too the obligation to be seen applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. Therefore, one who is blind in one eye is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance in the Temple.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman.
Ameimar said: Who are the ministering angels that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai mentioned? He was referring to the Sages, for whom he employed the honorary title: Ministering angels. Because if you say that he was referring to actual ministering angels, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai? The ministering angels are more knowledgeable about the forming of the fetus than people are. Clearly, if the ministering angels were the source for the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai it would have been imperative to heed his instructions. And why are the Sages called ministering angels? Because they stand out like ministering angels, as they are recognized by their clothing.
The mishna relates: Yosef ben Yo’ezer was the most pious member of the priesthood and was extremely careful to eat teruma in a state of ritual purity, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those who ate sacrificial food. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred food while following the laws of ritual purity for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those preparing the purification waters.
Rather, the proof is derived from the last clause in the mishna: Yosei ben Yo’ezer was the most pious member of the priesthood, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those who ate sacrificial food. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered rendered impure by the treading of a zavfor those preparing the purification waters.
§ The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And Elazar the scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.
And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, although the members of this family were violent. And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.
They said about Yoḥanan ben Narbbai that he and his household would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty se’a of doves for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yoḥanan ben Narbbai there was no leftover sacrificial meat in the Temple, as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question,
The second cry was: Open the gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings. They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four se’a of doves
The Gemara continues to cite examples of clean language: Yoḥanan from Ḥakuk went to the villages. When he came, they said to him: Did the wheat crop develop nicely? Reluctant to say that the wheat crop did not develop nicely, he said to them: The barley crop developed nicely, leaving them to draw their own conclusion. They said to him, mockingly: Go out and inform the horses and donkeys about the barley, as it is written: “Barley and hay for the horses and swift steeds” (I Kings 5:8). The Gemara asks: What could he have said to better express the bad news euphemistically? The Gemara answers: He could have said: Last year’s wheat crop developed nicely. Alternatively, he could have said that this year’s crop of lentils, which is also food for people, has developed nicely.
The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with this statement of Rav Naḥman, and rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident that occurred involving a certain person who deposited a saddlebag [disakkayya] filled with leavened bread with Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a, and mice bore a hole in the bag, and leavened bread was spilling out of the sack. And he came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on Passover eve to ask what he should do. In the first hour of the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Wait, as the owner of the bag might yet return to take it from you and eat the leaven. In the second hour he said to him: Wait. In the third hour he said to him: Wait. In the fourth hour he said to him: Wait. In the fifth hour, concluding that the person was not coming, he said to him: Go and sell it in the market.
Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving my father, Ḥalafta, who went to the esteemed Rabban Gamliel of Yavne in Tiberias, where he found him sitting at the table of Yoḥanan HaNazuf and in his hand there was a translation of the book of Job, and he was reading from it. Yoḥanan said to Rabban Gamliel of Yavne: I remember Rabban Gamliel, your father’s father, who was standing on top of a step on the Temple Mount. And they brought before him a translation of the book of Job, and he said to the builder: Bury this book under the course of bricks. When he heard of that incident, Rabban Gamliel of Yavne ordered that it be buried and he buried it. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that on the Temple Mount they overturned a large bowl of mortar on it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There are two responses to this that prove that it did not happen: One, from where would they get mortar on the Temple Mount? Construction on the Temple Mount was performed with other materials, not with mortar. And furthermore, is it permitted to actively destroy even sacred writings that are not read, with one’s hands? Rather, at the very least they leave them in a neglected place, where they are likely to decompose quickly, and they decay on their own. The Gemara seeks to clarify: Who are the tanna’im who dispute this halakha according to Rav Huna?
The Gemara asks: And does he not become wicked? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: Do not be sure of yourself until the day you die, as Yoḥanan the High Priest served in the High Priesthood for eighty years and ultimately became a Sadducee. Even one who is outstanding in his righteousness can become a heretic.
Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection: It is stated in Megillat Ta’anit: On the third of Tishrei the ordinance requiring the mention of God’s name in legal documents was abolished, and on that day fasting is forbidden. For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree against the Jews forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated the Greeks, they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their legal documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yoḥanan the High Priest of the God Most High.
But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that is a reference to the Second Temple, which stood for four hundred and twenty years and in which over three hundred High Priests served. In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, deduct from the figure of four hundred and twenty years forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty years that Yoḥanan the High Priest served, ten years that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven years that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, go out and calculate from this point forward and conclude: Each and every one of the remaining High Priests did not complete his year in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.
And Rabbi Ḥanina would conclude his retelling of the incident as follows: That individual then went on to say: And my friends would separate themselves from me, and they would call me: Yoḥanan, eater of Ḥallot, a reference to the portion of dough given to the priests, which has the same status as teruma. And after hearing this anecdote, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to the priesthood and granted him the right to partake of teruma based on his statement. Since it is prohibited for non-priests to consume teruma by Torah law, it is apparent that offhand remarks may be relied upon even with regard to Torah law, even in cases unrelated to enabling a woman to remarry.
§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee in the sukka of Yoḥanan, son of Rabbi Elai, in Caesarea; and some say that it did not occur in Caesarea but in Caesarion. And the sun reached a point over the roofing of the sukka, rendering it uncomfortable to remain in the sukka. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the halakha; may I spread a sheet over the roofing? Is it permitted, since it is only adding to a temporary tent or is it prohibited? Rabbi Eliezer evaded the question and said to him: There is no tribe of Israel from which a judge did not emerge.
After this heroic act I said to him, admiring his bravery: Lion [arye], may your strength continue to be firm. He said to me: From where do you know that my name is Arye? That is what they call me in my city: Yoḥanan, son of Rabbi Yehonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. After a while, he fell sick and died, and consequently the fellow traveler knew his name and could testify about him. And Rabbi Tarfon allowed his wife to marry based on this testimony.
Rabbi Tarfon said to him, in order to check his story: Did you not tell me that the dead man said that his name was Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, from the village Shiḥayya, which is called Lion? He replied to him: No. Rather, this is what I told you: He told me that he is called Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. Then Rabbi Tarfon cross-examined him in this manner two or three times, and the witness repeatedly kept his statements consistent, so Rabbi Tarfon allowed his wife to marry. In this version of the story, the mere report of events does not seem sufficient. An interrogation of the witness is also necessary.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Tarfon require inquiry and interrogation of the witness? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: An incident occurred involving a certain person who came before Rabbi Tarfon to present testimony that a woman’s husband died. He said to him: My son, how do you know this testimony? He told him: He and I were traveling on the road together, and a troop of soldiers chased after us. He hung onto a fig branch, and tore it off, and forced the troop to withdraw by intimidating the soldiers with the branch. I said to him: May your strength continue to be firm, lion. He said to me: You have intuited my name well, for that is what they call me in my city: Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. The man concluded his story: After a while, he fell sick and died.
Rabbi Tarfon said to him, in order to check his story: Did you not tell me that the dead man said that his name was Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, from the village Shiḥayya, which is called Lion? He replied to him: No. Rather, this is what I told you: He told me that he is called Yoḥanan, son of Yonatan, the lion from the village Shiḥayya. Then Rabbi Tarfon cross-examined him in this manner two or three times, and the witness repeatedly kept his statements consistent, so Rabbi Tarfon allowed his wife to marry. In this version of the story, the mere report of events does not seem sufficient. An interrogation of the witness is also necessary.
As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:6): There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was sitting on a step on the Temple Mount, and Yoḥanan, that scribe, was standing before him, and three blank documents cut from parchment and ready for writing were set before him.
The Gemara answers: When it is stated in the baraita that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, for example, to Yoḥani bat Retivi, who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery.
The Gemara comments: This is as it is written: “For the leader, upon yonat eilem reḥokim, a psalm [mikhtam] of David” (Psalms 56:1). Rabbi Yoḥanan says the verse means: From the moment that her signs were distanced [reḥokim], she became like a mute dove [yona illemet]. And the phrase “a psalm [mikhtam] of David” means: The one from whom David emerged, as he was modest [makh] and flawless [tam] with everyone. Alternatively, mikhtam indicates that makkato, the place on his body that would have required wounding [makka], was complete [tama], i.e., that David was born circumcised. Alternatively, mikhtam indicates that just as in his youth David made himself small in front of one who was greater than him in order to learn Torah from that person, so too, when he became great and was crowned king, he still behaved in this manner, so that his modesty, makh, was complete, tam, all of his life.
The Gemara clarifies: Which area is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: All of the area that widens outward when cut along its width, this is the entrance of the gullet; all the area that remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is that Master? It is Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather, he said that all of the area that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which area, then, is the gullet itself? It is all of the area that constricts when cut and closes inward. The Sage Yona says in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the throat immediately bordering the gullet. And how much of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? Rav Avya said: Less than the length of a barley kernel and more than the length of a wheat kernel.
He said to them: Did you hear that Dosa ben Harkinas issued this ruling, or did you hear that it was stated by ben Harkinas? They said to him: On your life, Rabbi, we heard simply ben Harkinas. He said to them: If so, it is no wonder, as I have a younger brother who is the firstborn of the Satan, i.e., he is extremely sharp and as brazen as a demon. And his name is Yonatan, and he is among the disciples of Shammai. It is he who issued this ruling.
And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.
The Gemara objects: Demons too can appear in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has a shadow [bavua]. The Gemara objects: Demons also have a shadow. The Gemara explains: It is a case where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. The Gemara objects: And perhaps demons too have the shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina says: Yonatan my son taught me that demons have a shadow but they do not have the shadow of a shadow.
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.
The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. 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, and 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 youngest of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.
The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes 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. And if the youngest 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 sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated.
§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs, and a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind?
Rather, it is this tanna, Rabbi Natan, who maintains that Shabbat is a fit time for donning phylacteries, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who is awake at night, if he wishes he may remove his phylacteries, and if he wishes he may continue to don them, and he need not worry about violating the prohibition against adding to mitzvot. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Yonatan HaKitoni says: One may not don phylacteries at night. From the fact that according to the first tanna, Rabbi Natan, night is a fit time for phylacteries, it may be inferred that Shabbat, too, is a time for donning phylacteries, as Rabbi Natan evidently does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s limitation based on the phrase: From year to year.
The Gemara asks: But they also have a shadow. The Gemara answers: It was a case where they saw that he had a shadow of a shadow. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they also have a shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Yonatan the demon expert said to me: They have a shadow, but they do not have a shadow of a shadow.
Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: With regard to these books of the house of Abidan, does one rescue them from the fire or does one not rescue them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said yes and no, and the matter was uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan for conversation, and all the more so he would not go to the house of Nitzrefei, the Persian fire-temple. Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, but to the house of Abidan he did go. The gentile scholars said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? He evaded their question with an excuse and said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and that makes the path difficult for me. They said to him: We will uproot it. He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in its place will be difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am one of them, we are friends, and I do not fear them. Still, one time he went and argued with them and they sought to endanger his life. Rabbi Meir would call the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the wicked folio [aven gilyon]; Rabbi Yoḥanan called it the sinful folio [avon gilyon].
When Rabbi Zeira ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he ate meat from an animal during whose slaughter the knife was diverted from the place of slaughter, with regard to which Rav and Shmuel ruled that the slaughter is not valid, and in Eretz Yisrael the ruling was that the slaughter is valid. The Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael said to Rabbi Zeira: Aren’t you from Babylonia, the place where Rav and Shmuel are the halakhic authorities? You should follow their ruling. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Who said this halakha citing Rav and Shmuel? It was Yosef bar Ḥiyya, referring to Rav Yosef. Yosef bar Ḥiyya learns from everyone, even from students of Rav and Shmuel who misquote their statements.
The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left his position, the priests appointed another, Yosef ben Eilim, in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification passed, his brethren the priests did not allow Yosef ben Eilim to serve, neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to enmity, jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as an ordinary priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.
Rabbi Yosei said as proof for his opinion: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a reason for disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest.
Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the Ḥasid, explained before Rav Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is thisbaraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥonai. As we learned in a mishna that Yosef ben Ḥonai says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the purpose of a Paschal offering or for the purpose of a sin-offering are disqualified, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this regard. It is apparent that its disqualification is in the body of the offering itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with regard to exemptions from sin-offerings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt.
Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥonai. Therefore, on weekdays the offering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one does not become liable to bring a sin-offering.
§ The mishna teaches: Yosef ben Ḥoni says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Yosef ben Ḥoni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Ḥoni.
Rather, Rabba says: The mishna’s ruling, that drawn water invalidates the ritual bath only according to calculation, is not referring to drawn water that flowed. Instead, it means according to the calculation of the number of vessels from which the drawn water was directly poured into the ritual bath, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ḥoni.
As it is taught in a baraita: If three log of drawn water fell into the water of a ritual bath that lacked the requisite measure, from two or three vessels, with each containing at least one log of drawn water, or even from four or five vessels, where no whole log fell in at once, it invalidates the ritual bath. Yosef ben Ḥoni says: It is only if the drawn water was in two or three vessels that the water invalidates the ritual bath. But if the drawn water was in four or five vessels, the water does not invalidate the ritual bath. This is what the mishna means.
Rava said: That is to say that one of two people with identical names, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city, can present a promissory note to claim a debt from others, and the borrower cannot claim that the promissory note was written for the other Yosef ben Shimon.
The Gemara comments: And even in a place where caravans are frequently found, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, but this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, in that one town.
The Gemara explains: But isn’t the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are frequently found, as there were always many people present there? And yet Rabba resolved the question and ruled that one should return the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. Apparently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in one town, then yes, there is a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.
The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident that a fire ignited on Shabbat in the courtyard of Yosef ben Simai in a place called Shiḥin. And men came from the fortress [gistera] of Tzippori to extinguish the fire, because he was a steward [apotropos] of the king and they wanted to help him. However, Yosef ben Simai would not allow them to extinguish the fire in deference to Shabbat; and a miracle transpired for him and rain fell and extinguished the fire. That evening after Shabbat he sent two sela to each one of the soldiers who came to his aid, and fifty to their commander [iparkhos]. And when the Sages heard about this, they said: He need not have prevented them from extinguishing the fire, as we learned in the mishna: If a gentile comes to extinguish a Jew’s fire on Shabbat, one may not say to him: Extinguish, and: Do not extinguish, because responsibility for his rest is not incumbent upon the Jew; rather, the gentile may do as he pleases.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
§ Earlier the Gemara mentioned the halakha of a sin offering whose owner died, which was one of the halakhot forgotten during the mourning period for Moses (see 16a). On this topic the Gemara says that we learned in a mishna there (Sota 47a): From the time when Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem died, the clusters [eshkolot] ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of eshkolot? It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo], i.e., both Torah and mitzvot.
The mishna relates: Yosef ben Yo’ezer was the most pious member of the priesthood and was extremely careful to eat teruma in a state of ritual purity, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those who ate sacrificial food. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred food while following the laws of ritual purity for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those preparing the purification waters.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.
The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed oneilliyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed oneilliyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.
§ Earlier the Gemara mentioned the halakha of a sin offering whose owner died, which was one of the halakhot forgotten during the mourning period for Moses (see 16a). On this topic the Gemara says that we learned in a mishna there (Sota 47a): From the time when Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosef ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem died, the clusters [eshkolot] ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of eshkolot? It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo], i.e., both Torah and mitzvot.
And we maintain that anywhere that it says: There was an incident involving a certain pious man, the man in question is either Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava or Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai. And these Sages lived many generations after Yosef ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida. If this is the case, then even in later generations there were Sages without a flaw.
§ The Sages taught: At the time of the passing of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said: I need my sons. His sons entered his room. He said to them as a last will and testament: Be careful with the honor of your mother. He said further: My lamp should be lit in its usual place, my table should be set in its usual place, and the bed should be arranged in its usual place. Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati; they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death.
The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: Yosef Ḥeifani and Shimon Efrati, they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death. It was understood from this statement that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was speaking of this world, that these two should serve him in his death and administer his burial. However, when they saw that their biers preceded his bier, i.e., they died before him, they said: Conclude from here that he was speaking of that world. They will attend to him in the World-to-Come.
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
§ And this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yosef of Hutzal raised a dilemma with regard to the verse: “And he prepared a partition in the midst of the House within to set there the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord” (I Kings 6:19). This was his dilemma that was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the verse speaking?
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
The Gemara explains the objection presented by this baraita. And wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Yosef of Hutzal is the one called Yosef the Babylonian, as Hutzal is a city in Babylonia; and he is also the person called Isi ben Yehuda, as Isi is a shortened form of Yosef; he is Isi ben Gur Arye, a nickname for Yehuda; he is Isi ben Gamliel; he is Isi ben Mahalalel? And what is his real name? Isi ben Akiva is his name. If they are indeed the same person, Isi ben Yehuda, who is Yosef of Hutzal, says that there are only five verses whose punctuation is unclear, whereas here he adds an additional verse. The Gemara explains: In the Torah itself, there are indeed no more than five verses, but in the Prophets there are more examples of equivocal punctuation, one of which is the verse from I Kings.
The Gemara notes: And the matter of whether a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is still considered a zav is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If an acute mourner or one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned the red heifer, it is fit. Yosef the Babylonian says: If an acute mourner burned it, it is fit, but if one who has not yet brought an atonement offering burned it, it is disqualified. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Yosef the Babylonian, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is considered a full-fledged zav and therefore disqualifies the red heifer, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a zav who has not yet brought an atonement offering is not considered a zav, but is instead considered like one who immersed that day, who is fit to burn the red heifer?
The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Yosef the bird hunter [rishba]. They served him the head of a peacock [tayvasa] in milk and he did not say anything to them. When Levi came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Why did you not excommunicate these people who eat bird meat cooked in milk, contrary to the decree of the Sages?
Who said those teachings, and delivered them from one place to the other? Was it not Elijah the Prophet, who traveled from Sura to Pumbedita by way of a miraculous leap through the air above ten handbreadths from the ground, who said them? Apparently, the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, for Elijah would not have transgressed this prohibition. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof; perhaps Yosef the demon, who does not observe Shabbat, reported these teachings and brought them from Sura to Pumbedita.
Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demon said to me: Ashmedai, the king of the demons, is appointed over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit. A king would not cause harm. Consequently, there is no reason to fear the harm of demons for having performed an action in pairs. Some say this statement in this manner: On the contrary, he is an angry king who does what he wants, as the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action. Similarly, the king of demons has full license to harm people who perform actions in pairs.
Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we demons kill him; if he drinks four, we do not kill him. But this person who drank four, we harm him. There is another difference between two and four: With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.
The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Yosef the hunter. They served him the head of a peacock [tavsa] in milk and he did not eat. When Levi came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the latter said to him: Why did you not excommunicate these people who eat poultry in milk, contrary to the decree of the Sages? Levi said to him: It was in the locale of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, and I said: Perhaps he taught them that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who permits the eating of poultry meat in milk. Given the possibility that their rabbi rules that it is permitted, I cannot come and prohibit it, and I certainly cannot excommunicate them for it.
The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.
The Gemara relates a relevant incident: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was traveling while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: Simlai, you were not in the study hall last night when we permitted the oil of gentiles. Rabbi Simlai said to him: In our days, you will permit bread of gentiles as well. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, people will call us a permissive court. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza, a type of locust, that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, as soon explained by the Gemara. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive.
§ The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara asks: What is the eil kamtza? Rav Pappa says: It is a long-headed locust called shoshiva, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla: It is a locust called susbil.
§ It was stated: And Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, and as a result they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, they should have called him: Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore, this halakhais explicitly written in the Torah, as it is written: “And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16).
a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the only suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yosei reported in support of his position: It once happened that Yosef the priest went to his teacher in Tzeidan, outside Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah, although the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael.
Rabbi Yosei says, in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Yosef the priest, who followed his teacher to the city of Sidon, outside of Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah even though the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that the halakhais different depending on whether his relative died before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan or whether he died after midday? As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a priest: “And for his sister a virgin, that is near unto him, that has had no husband, for her may he become impure” (Leviticus 21:3). From here it is derived that it is a mitzva for a priest to become impure in order to bury his deceased relatives, and if he did not want to do so, others must render him impure against his will. And an incident occurred involving Yosef the priest, where his wife died on Passover eve, and he did not want to become impure, as he wanted to offer the Paschal offering; and his brethren the priests voted and rendered him impure against his will.
§ It was stated: And Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, and as a result they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, they should have called him: Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore, this halakhais explicitly written in the Torah, as it is written: “And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16).
The Gemara relates with regard to Yosef who cherishes Shabbat: There was a gentile in his neighborhood whose property was extremely plentiful. The astrologers said to the gentile with regard to all his property: Yosef who cherishes Shabbat will consume it. The gentile went and sold all of his property, and with the money he received he bought a pearl, and he placed it in his hat. When he was crossing a river in a ferry, the wind blew his hat and cast it into the water, and a fish swallowed it. The fish was caught and removed from the water and it was brought to shore adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve. The fishermen said: Who buys fish at a time like this? The townspeople said to the fishermen: Go bring it to Yosef who cherishes Shabbat, as he regularly purchases delicacies in deference to Shabbat. They brought it to him and he purchased it. He ripped the fish open and found a pearl inside it. He sold it for thirteen vessels filled with golden dinars (Tosafot). This elderly man who encountered him and said: One who lends to Shabbat, Shabbat repays him.
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.
Yosei ben Ḥoni says: Not only are the Paschal offering and the sin offering unfit when slaughtered not for their sake, but also other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering and for the sake of a sin offering are unfit.
From the time when Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yehuda of Jerusalem died, the clusters ceased, i.e., they were the last of the clusters, as explained in the Gemara, as it is stated: “There is no cluster to eat; nor first-ripe fig that my soul desires” (Micah 7:1). The mishna continues in the same vein: Yoḥanan the High Priest took away the declaration of the tithe. After his time, no one recited the passage about the elimination of tithes that had previously been said at the end of a three-year tithing cycle. He also nullified the actions of the awakeners and the strikers at the Temple.
In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. And if you say that Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?
Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata? instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.
Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels. The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? Wasn’t it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the Second Temple period who issued these decrees? As Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name of your father.
MISHNA:Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shata? says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.
Rather, the proof is derived from the last clause in the mishna: Yosei ben Yo’ezer was the most pious member of the priesthood, and yet his cloth was considered impure by the treading of a zavfor those who ate sacrificial food. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda would eat non-sacred foods prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food all his days, and nevertheless his cloth was considered rendered impure by the treading of a zavfor those preparing the purification waters.
§ The mishna taught that from the time when Yosei ben Yo’ezer died the clusters ceased. The Gemara poses a question: What is the meaning of clusters [eshkolot]? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It means a man who contains all [ish shehakol bo] elements of Torah and mitzvot. The mishna further taught that Yoḥanan the High Priest took away the declaration of the tithe. The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason he did this? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Because they did not give the tithe in the proper manner as stated by the Torah. In what way is that? As the Merciful One states in the Torah that they should give the first tithe to the Levites,
Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shata? instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.
Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels. The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? Wasn’t it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the Second Temple period who issued these decrees? As Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name of your father.
In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. And if you say that Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?
This is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: Yoshiya from Usha told me that with regard to a black cataract, if it is sunken it is a blemish, but if it is floating it is not a blemish. Conversely, with regard to a white cataract, if it is sunken it is not a blemish, whereas if it is floating it is a blemish. And your mnemonic to remember this is barka, which is a disease in which white patches float above the eye, and it is considered a blemish.
Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce, they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on the earlobe, as the halakha is that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierce a slave’s earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A pierced earlobe is not considered a blemish. This indicates that he is pierced only on the upper part of the ear through the cartilage. The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?
It was further stated in the above baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach: When they pierce a slave they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: “And he shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.
And the latter clause of the baraitateaches: Rabbi Elazar said that Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce the ear of the slave, they pierce only in the earlobe.
Rabbi Shimon HaShiloni taught: When the evil Nebuchadnezzar threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, Yurkamo, the ministering angel of hail, stood before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, I will go down and cool the fiery furnace, and I will save these righteous ones from the fiery furnace. Gabriel said to him: The strength of the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not be evident in this manner, as you are the minister of hail, and everyone knows that water extinguishes fire. Your action would not be regarded as a great miracle. Rather, I, the ministering angel of fire, will descend, and I will cool the furnace from within,
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a gentile woman called Yusteni, the daughter of Asveirus, son of Antoninus, a Roman emperor, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. She said to him: My teacher, at what age is a woman fit to marry, i.e., at what age is it appropriate for a woman to engage in intercourse, which would therefore be the appropriate time to marry? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: She must be at least three years and one day old.
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.
The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Zavda bar Levi teaches: It is stated there, with regard to meat of an offering left over after the appointed time for its consumption [notar]: “But everyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8), and it is stated here, with regard to intent to consume an offering after its appointed time: “And the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). Just as there the punishment for eating notar is karet, so too here, the punishment for eating piggul is karet.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Zavdi bar Levi taught: It is derived that the prohibition of notar carries the penalty of karet by way of verbal analogy between “sacred” and “sacred.” It is written here: “But whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 19:8). And it is written there: “And if any of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder [notar] with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse there is referring to notar, so too, there verse here is referring to notar.
§ The Gemara relates: Abba Sikkara was the leader of the zealots [biryonei] of Jerusalem and the son of the sister of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai sent a message to him: Come to me in secret. He came, and Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Until when will you do this and kill everyone through starvation? Abba Sikkara said to him: What can I do, for if I say something to them they will kill me. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Show me a method so that I will be able to leave the city, and it is possible that through this there will be some small salvation.
§ It was taught in the mishna: There was once an incident where more than forty pairs of witnesses were passing through on their way to Jerusalem to testify about the new moon, and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod, telling them that there was no need for them to desecrate Shabbat for this purpose. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Rabbi Akiva detained them, for he would certainly not have made such an error. Rather, it was that Zefer, the head of the city of Geder, detained them. And Rabban Gamliel sent and they removed him from his high office because he had acted inappropriately.
§ While continuing to identify places that are mentioned in the Bible, Zeira said: The city of Kitron that is mentioned in the Bible is the city of Tzippori. And why was it called Tzippori? Because it sits on top of a mountain like a bird [tzippor].
Apropos eulogies for righteous men, the Gemara presents the names: Ḥanin, Yoḥanan, Zeira, Abba, Ya’akov, Yosei, Shmuel, Ḥiyya, and Menaḥem; this is a mnemonic device for the stories that follow.
Rav Naḥman said to the Sages: Rabbi Zeira, our colleague, interpreted the mishna as follows: In this case, the creditors do not claim the property because it is liened. Rather, they claim it because it is a mitzva incumbent upon the orphans to repay their father’s debt. Rav Ashi objects to this: If the promissory note does not place a lien on the property, this is considered a loan by oral agreement, and Rav and Shmuel both say: A loan by oral agreement cannot be collected, neither from the heirs nor from the buyers.
Rabbi Yehoshua said: That was how Zekharya ben HaKatzav would interpret it, i.e., he also derived from the superfluous vav that the woman is forbidden to her paramour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says an alternate source: The two times that the defilement of the wife is stated in the passage, namely: “And he warns his wife, and she is defiled” (Numbers 5:14), and the later verse: “When a wife, being under her husband, goes astray and is defiled” (Numbers 5:29), indicate that her defilement results in two prohibitions. One is that she is forbidden to her husband and one is that she is forbidden to her paramour.
Eventually, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael sent two Torah scholars after him, Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar and the grandson of Zekharya ben Kevutal. When Ḥanina saw them, he asked them: Why did you come? They responded: We came to study Torah. Since he saw his standing enhanced by the Sages of Eretz Yisrael coming to study Torah from him, he proclaimed about them: These people are eminent scholars of our generation, and their fathers served in the Temple. As we learned in tractate Yoma: Zekharya ben Kevutal says: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel on the eve of Yom Kippur.
They kept him occupied throughout the night to prevent him from sleeping. If he was a scholar, he would teach Torah. If he was not a scholar, Torah scholars would teach Torah before him. And if he was accustomed to read the Bible, he would read; and if he was not, they would read the Bible before him. And what books would they read before him to pique his interest so that he would not fall asleep? They would read from Job, and from Ezra, and from Chronicles. Zekharya, son of Kevutal, says: Many times I read before him from the book of Daniel.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of a father’s obligation to teach his son Torah. To what extent is a person obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One should emulate the education of, for example, Zevulun ben Dan, a contemporary of Shmuel, whose father’s father taught him Bible, Mishna, Talmud, halakhot, and aggadot. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a father taught his son Bible, he is not required to teach him Mishna. And Rava said in explanation of this baraita: Bible is the Torah, not the Prophets or Writings, i.e., he is not required to teach him anything else, including Mishna.
The Gemara answers that Shmuel’s statement should be understood as follows: One should teach his son like Zevulun ben Dan was taught in certain aspects, but not like Zevulun ben Dan in other respects. One should teach his son like Zevulun ben Dan in that his father’s father taught him; but not like Zevulun ben Dan, as there he was taught Bible, Mishna, Talmud, halakhot, and aggadot, while here, in this baraita, one is required to teach his son Bible alone.
Ze’eira bar Ḥama, the host of the home where Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Asi, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and all the Sages of Caesarea stayed, said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Son of a lion, come, I will tell you about a wonderful custom that your father used to perform. He had a cloth that he would prepare on the day before Yom Kippur by soaking it in water and wringing it out, making it almost like a dried cloth. And the next day he wiped his face, hands, and feet with it. On the day before the Ninth of Av, on which the prohibition of bathing is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, he would soak the cloth in water and the next day pass it over his eyes.
The Gemara relates: Abaye’s mother, actually his foster mother, prepared mustard for him, and he did not eat it. Ze’eira’s wife prepared mustard for Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, her husband’s student, and he did not eat it. She said to him: I made this for your rabbi and he ate it, and you do not eat it? Rava bar Shabba said: I was standing before Ravina, and they stirred mustard for him with the inner part of the garlic, and he ate it.
And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the prohibition of set-aside does not apply on Shabbat. And Ze’eiri also holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to an animal that died on Shabbat, one may not move it from its place on Shabbat. And Ze’eiri explained: This prohibition only applies to a consecrated animal, as consecrated items may not be fed to dogs in deference to their sanctity; therefore, it is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. However, in the case of a non-sacred animal, one may well move it and use it because it does not have set-aside status. And Rabbi Yoḥanan also said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in a mishna:
The Gemara further relates that Levi was brought straw through human partitions comprised of people who were unknowingly used for this purpose, and in the same manner Ze’eiri was brought fodder [aspasta], and Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya was brought water.
Ze’eiri said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever issues a halakhic ruling in his teacher’s presence is called a sinner, as it is stated: “Your word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You” (Psalms 119:11). In what case would speaking one’s word entail a sin? In a case where one rules on a matter of halakha in the presence of his teacher.
With regard to the deceased’s knowledge of what transpires, come and hear a proof, as it is told: Ze’iri would deposit his dinars with his innkeeper. While he was going and coming to and from the school of Rav, she died, and he did not know where she had put the money. So he went after her to her grave in the cemetery and said to her: Where are the dinars? She replied: Go and get them from beneath the hinge of the door in such and such a place, and tell my mother that she should send me my comb and a tube of eyeshadow with such and such a woman who will die and come here tomorrow. Apparently, the dead know what transpires in this world.
And the Gemara relates: When Ze’iri came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he succinctly capsulated this halakha and said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that he said: They abolished ritual washing of the hands. The Gemara explains: The one who says that they abolished immersion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. And the one who says that they abolished washing of the hands holds in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one who goes out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.
Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Abba bar Naḥmani, said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said, and some say that Rav Ḥisda said that Ze’iri said: Over all the incense one recites: Who creates fragrant trees, except for musk, which is extracted from a living creature, and over which one recites: Who creates various spices.
Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya of the village of Akko, said: The rains are withheld only if the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people, have been sentenced to destruction for their sins, as it is stated: “Drought and heat will steal the snow waters; to the grave those who have sinned” (Job 24:19). According to this interpretation, snow water will be stolen by drought, i.e., there will be none available, when people have sinned to the point that they deserve the grave. Ze’iri from Dihavat said to Ravina: You learned this idea from here; we learned it from here: “And the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will close up the heavens, and there will be no rain, and the earth will not give its fruit, and you will perish quickly” (Deuteronomy 11:17).
Rav Ḥisda said: Melon juice, which is beneficial for the intestines, may be strained and drunk on Shabbat (ge’onim). The juice of pipuim, which are a type of vegetable (Rashba), may not be drunk on Shabbat. The Gemara relates: Ze’iri’s wife made melon juice for Ḥiyya bar Ashi and he did not consume it. She said to him: I made it for your Rabbi, Ze’iri, and he ate it, and you do not eat it? The Gemara explains: Ze’iri followed his own reasoning in permitting this drink, as Ze’iri said: One may place clear wine and clear water into a strainer used to strain dregs from wine on Shabbat without concern. Apparently, since the wine and water are drunk even with what little dregs may remain, one is doing nothing to improve them. Here, too, since melon juice is consumed this way, without being strained and for non-medical purposes, one is doing nothing and it is permitted.
The Gemara comments: This is like that incident where Tuveya sinned with immorality, and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa instructed that Zigud be lashed. Zigud said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed, an objection that became a popular saying. He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” (Deuteronomy 19:15), and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation.
And some teach a variant reading of the mishna: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments, so that those exiled would pray that their sons will not die. The Gemara infers: The reason that the High Priests will not die is that they pray, but if they did not pray for the High Priest not to die, would the High Priest die? What could the High Priest have done to prevent the unintentional murder? Here, in Babylonia, we say an adage to describe a situation of that sort: Toviyya sinned and Zigud is flogged. Toviyya violated a prohibition and Zigud came as a single witness to testify against him. Since the testimony of a single witness is not valid in court, he is flogged for defaming Toviyya. The sinner is unpunished and the person who sought to testify against him is flogged. This became a colloquialism for a situation where one is punished for the sin of another.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said of this: I do not know of Zilai or Zivai or Zuhamai; rather, I know a baraita, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for holy am I, the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:26). With regard to this verse, the Sages said: And you shall sanctify yourselves, these are the first waters with which one washes his hands before the meal; and you shall be holy, these are the final waters; for holy, this is oil which one spreads on his hands; am I, the Lord your God, this is the Grace after Meals blessing.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said of this: I do not know of Zilai or Zivai or Zuhamai; rather, I know a baraita, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for holy am I, the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:26). With regard to this verse, the Sages said: And you shall sanctify yourselves, these are the first waters with which one washes his hands before the meal; and you shall be holy, these are the final waters; for holy, this is oil which one spreads on his hands; am I, the Lord your God, this is the Grace after Meals blessing.
It was related that Rav Huna died suddenly, and the Sages were concerned that this was a bad sign. The Sage Zuga from Hadayeiv taught them the following: They taught these principles only when the deceased had not reached the age of strength, i.e., eighty. But if he had reached the age of strength and then died suddenly, this is death by way of a divine kiss.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said of this: I do not know of Zilai or Zivai or Zuhamai; rather, I know a baraita, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: It is stated: “And you shall sanctify yourselves, and you shall be holy, for holy am I, the Lord your God” (Leviticus 20:26). With regard to this verse, the Sages said: And you shall sanctify yourselves, these are the first waters with which one washes his hands before the meal; and you shall be holy, these are the final waters; for holy, this is oil which one spreads on his hands; am I, the Lord your God, this is the Grace after Meals blessing.
The Gemara relates: Zunin entered the study hall and said to the Sages: My teachers, with regard to stones that may be moved on Shabbat for wiping in the bathroom, how much is their measure? They said to him: Stones of only three sizes may be moved for that purpose: An olive-bulk, a nut-bulk, and an egg-bulk. He said to them: And will he take scales [turtani] into the bathroom to weigh each stone? They were counted and the Sages concluded that one need not measure the stones. He simply takes a handful of stones. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says the measure of bathroom stones is an olive-bulk, a nut-bulk, and an egg-bulk. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: One need not measure the stones. He simply takes a handful of stones.
The Gemara asks with regard to the previous discussion: And was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expert in the halakhot of tied documents? But wasn’t there a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw the date he said: This is a postdated document. And a Sage named Zunin said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Such is the custom of this nation; when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. The document is therefore not postdated. From this anecdote it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself had not been familiar with this practice.
The Gemara answers: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard it from Zunin he accepted the explanation and held this way himself, and that is what prompted him to raise his objection.
Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited.
Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed for the entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow.
§ Zutra bar Toviyya was once reading the portion of the Bible before Rav Yehuda. When he reached the verse: “Now these are the last words of David” (II Samuel 23:1), Zutra bar Toviyya said to Rav Yehuda: If it is written that these are the last of David’s words, by inference there are first words as well. If this is the case, what are these first words of David? Prior to this, it mentions only David’s song, but not his words.