This page follows the conversations of Rabbi and Antoninus, resolutions of conflicting verses, and proofs for resurrection. We will build the sugya’s blueprint step by step, distinguishing questions, answers, and evidence.
Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.
בַּכּוּרוֹת נָאוֹת, וְהוֹשִׁיב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי שׁוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד חִיגֵּר וְאֶחָד סוֹמֵא. אָמַר לוֹ חִיגֵּר לַסּוֹמֵא: בַּכּוּרוֹת נָאוֹת אֲנִי רוֹאֶה בַּפַּרְדֵּס. בֹּא וְהַרְכִּיבֵנִי וּנְבִיאֵם לְאׇכְלָם. רָכַב חִיגֵּר עַל גַּבֵּי סוֹמֵא, וֶהֱבִיאוּם וַאֲכָלוּם. לְיָמִים בָּא בַּעַל פַּרְדֵּס. אָמַר לָהֶן: בַּכּוּרוֹת נָאוֹת הֵיכָן הֵן? אָמַר לוֹ חִיגֵּר: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ לִי רַגְלַיִם לְהַלֵּךְ בָּהֶן? אָמַר לוֹ סוֹמֵא: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ לִי עֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת? מָה עָשָׂה? הִרְכִּיב חִיגֵּר עַל גַּבֵּי סוֹמֵא, וְדָן אוֹתָם כְּאֶחָד.
The page opens midway through a parable serving as an answer: the lame watchman sees the fruit, and the blind watchman carries him, enabling them to eat it together. When the orchard owner returns, each claims that he cannot take fruit alone. The owner reunites them and judges them together because they acted jointly.
אַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא נְשָׁמָה וְזוֹרְקָהּ בַּגּוּף, וְדָן אוֹתָם כְּאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִקְרָא אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם מֵעָל וְאֶל הָאָרֶץ לָדִין עַמּוֹ״. ״יִקְרָא אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם מֵעָל״ – זוֹ נְשָׁמָה, ״וְאֶל הָאָרֶץ לָדִין עַמּוֹ״ – זֶה הַגּוּף.
The application is that God restores the soul to the body and judges them together. The verse summoning heaven and earth is interpreted as referring to soul and body. This anchors the parable in Scripture and clarifies their shared responsibility.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַנְטוֹנִינוּס לְרַבִּי: מִפְּנֵי מָה חַמָּה יוֹצְאָה בַּמִּזְרָח וְשׁוֹקַעַת בְּמַעֲרָב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הֲוָה אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי הָכִי הֲוָה אָמְרַתְּ לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ: מִפְּנֵי מָה שׁוֹקַעַת בַּמַּעֲרָב?
Antoninus asks why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Rabbi replies that the same question could be asked if the directions were reversed. Antoninus sharpens the inquiry: he is asking about the significance of setting specifically in the west.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן שָׁלוֹם לְקוֹנָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּצְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם לְךָ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְתֵיתֵי עַד פַּלְגָא דְרָקִיעַ, וְתִתֵּן שְׁלָמָא, וְתֵיעוֹל! מִשּׁוּם פּוֹעֲלִים וּמִשּׁוּם עוֹבְרֵי דְרָכִים.
Rabbi explains the western sunset as a greeting to the Creator, citing a verse about the heavenly host bowing to God. Antoninus challenges this: why does the sun not reach the middle of the sky, greet God, and disappear there? The answer considers workers and travelers, who need the course of daylight and signs of its approaching end.
וְאָמַר לוֹ אַנְטוֹנִינוּס לְרַבִּי: נְשָׁמָה מֵאֵימָתַי נִיתְּנָה בָּאָדָם, מִשְּׁעַת פְּקִידָה אוֹ מִשְּׁעַת יְצִירָה? אָמַר לוֹ: מִשְּׁעַת יְצִירָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אֶפְשָׁר חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר עוֹמֶדֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא מֶלַח וְאֵינָהּ מַסְרַחַת? אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת פְּקִידָה. אָמַר רַבִּי: דָּבָר זֶה לִמְּדַנִי אַנְטוֹנִינוּס, וּמִקְרָא מְסַיְּיעוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּפְקֻדָּתְךָ שָׁמְרָה רוּחִי״.
Antoninus asks whether the soul is given at conception, the beginning of pregnancy, or when the body takes form. Rabbi initially proposes formation, but Antoninus argues that flesh cannot persist without decay in the absence of a life-sustaining force. Rabbi accepts that the soul is given at conception and cites support from “Your care has preserved my spirit.”
וְאָמַר לוֹ אַנְטוֹנִינוּס לְרַבִּי: מֵאֵימָתַי יֵצֶר הָרָע שׁוֹלֵט בָּאָדָם, מִשְּׁעַת יְצִירָה אוֹ מִשְּׁעַת יְצִיאָה? אָמַר לוֹ: מִשְּׁעַת יְצִירָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, בּוֹעֵט בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא! אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת יְצִיאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי: דָּבָר זֶה לִמְּדַנִי אַנְטוֹנִינוּס, וּמִקְרָא מְסַיְּיעוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ״.
In a parallel inquiry, Antoninus asks when the evil inclination begins to rule: at formation or at birth. Rabbi proposes formation, and Antoninus objects that the fetus would then kick its way out of the womb. Rabbi accepts the answer “from birth,” supporting it with “Sin crouches at the entrance.”
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״בָּם עִוֵּר וּפִסֵּחַ הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת יַחְדָּיו״, וּכְתִיב ״אָז יְדַלֵּג כָּאַיָּל פִּסֵּחַ וְתָרֹן לְשׁוֹן אִלֵּם כִּי נִבְקְעוּ בַמִּדְבָּר מַיִם וּנְחָלִים בָּעֲרָבָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? עוֹמְדִין בְּמוּמָן וּמִתְרַפְּאִין.
Reish Lakish contrasts a verse describing blind and lame people with one in which the lame leap and the mute sing. The resolution distinguishes two stages: the dead rise with their impairments and are then healed. Neither description must be discarded; they are placed in sequence.
עוּלָּא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״בִּלַּע הַמָּוֶת לָנֶצַח וּמָחָה ה׳ דִּמְעָה מֵעַל כׇּל פָּנִים״, וּכְתִיב ״כִּי הַנַּעַר בֶּן מֵאָה שָׁנָה יָמוּת לֹא יִהְיֶה מִשָּׁם עוֹד עוּל יָמִים״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן – בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. וְאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מַאי בָּעוּ הָתָם? הָנָךְ דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״וְעָמְדוּ זָרִים וְרָעוּ צֹאנְכֶם וּבְנֵי נֵכָר אִכָּרֵיכֶם וְכֹרְמֵיכֶם״.
Ulla presents a conflict between death being abolished forever and a description of death at age one hundred. The Gemara assigns the abolition of death to Israel and the remaining mortality to the nations. Asked why members of the nations are present there, it cites a verse describing foreigners as shepherds, farmers, and vineyard workers.
רַב חִסְדָּא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וְחָפְרָה הַלְּבָנָה וּבוֹשָׁה הַחַמָּה כִּי מָלַךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת״, וּכְתִיב ״וְהָיָה אוֹר הַלְּבָנָה כְּאוֹר הַחַמָּה וְאוֹר הַחַמָּה יִהְיֶה שִׁבְעָתַיִם כְּאוֹר שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, כָּאן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rav Ḥisda contrasts the sun and moon being ashamed with a promise that their light will greatly increase. The resolution distinguishes periods: increased light belongs to the messianic era, while the luminaries’ shame belongs to the World to Come. Here, the timeline provides the foundation for resolving the conflict.
וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אֵין בֵּין הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ אֶלָּא שִׁיעְבּוּד גָּלִיּוֹת בִּלְבַד, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמַחֲנֵה צַדִּיקִים, כָּאן בְּמַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה.
According to Shmuel, the only difference between the present world and the messianic era is freedom from foreign rule, so the previous resolution needs adjustment. The Gemara distinguishes the camp of the righteous from the camp of the Divine Presence. Increased light applies to the righteous, while the luminaries’ shame applies to the Divine Presence, beside whose radiance their light is insignificant.
רָבָא רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״אֲנִי אָמִית וַאֲחַיֶּה״, וּכְתִיב ״מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא״. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי מֵמִית – אֲנִי מְחַיֶּה, וַהֲדַר מַה שֶּׁמָּחַצְתִּי – וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא.
Rava sets “I put to death and bring to life” alongside “I have wounded and I will heal,” examining the relationship between revival and healing. The answer arranges them in stages: God first revives those He put to death and then heals their injuries. This reinforces the structure already encountered: rising followed by healing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲנִי אָמִית וַאֲחַיֶּה״ – יָכוֹל שֶׁתְּהֵא מִיתָה בְּאֶחָד וְחַיִּים בְּאֶחָד, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעוֹלָם נוֹהֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מָחַצְתִּי וַאֲנִי אֶרְפָּא״ – מָה מְחִיצָה וּרְפוּאָה בְּאֶחָד, אַף מִיתָה וְחַיִּים בְּאֶחָד. מִיכָּן תְּשׁוּבָה לָאוֹמְרִין אֵין תְּחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
A baraita considers whether “I put to death and bring to life” means that one person dies while another lives, as ordinarily happens. The comparison with wounding and healing teaches that both actions concern the same person. The baraita thus answers the claim that resurrection has no basis in the Torah.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לַה׳״. ״שָׁר״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יָשִׁיר״ – מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אָז יִבְנֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִזְבֵּחַ לַה׳״. ״בָּנָה״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יִבְנֶה״ – מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
In a baraita, Rabbi Meir reads “Then Moses will sing” as pointing toward future song, not merely a song already sung. A similar interpretation is offered for “Then Joshua will build.” Both readings find a basis for resurrection in the future-oriented wording.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״אָז יִבְנֶה שְׁלֹמֹה בָּמָה לִכְמוֹשׁ שִׁקֻּץ מוֹאָב״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּיִבְנֶה? אֶלָּא מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ בָּנָה.
The Gemara tests the interpretation with “Then Solomon will build a shrine to Chemosh”: must this too imply future construction? The answer is that Scripture accounts it to Solomon as though he built the shrine. This shows that not every occurrence of “will build” requires the same interpretation.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי יוֹשְׁבֵי בֵיתֶךָ עוֹד יְהַלְלוּךָ סֶּלָה״. ״הִילְּלוּךְ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יְהַלְלוּךָ״ – מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירָה בְּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה זוֹכֶה וְאוֹמְרָהּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי יוֹשְׁבֵי בֵיתֶךָ עוֹד יְהַלְלוּךָ סֶּלָה״.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi derives resurrection from “They will yet praise You,” rather than “They praised You.” From the same verse, he also teaches that one who sings praise in this world merits singing it in the World to Come. The proof for resurrection thus expands into a connection between present and future song.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קוֹל צֹפַיִךְ נָשְׂאוּ קוֹל יַחְדָּו יְרַנֵּנוּ וְגוֹ״. ״רִינְּנוּ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יְרַנֵּנוּ״ – מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עֲתִידִין כׇּל הַנְּבִיאִים כּוּלָּן אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה בְּקוֹל אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קוֹל צֹפַיִךְ נָשְׂאוּ קוֹל יַחְדָּו יְרַנֵּנוּ״.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba reports Rabbi Yoḥanan’s proof from “Together they will sing,” rather than “They sang.” He adds that all the prophets will sing with one voice. “They will sing” supports the resurrection interpretation, while “together” emphasizes their united song.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הֲלָכָה מִפִּי תַלְמִיד, כְּאִילּוּ גּוֹזְלוֹ מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבוֹתָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב״. מוֹרָשָׁה הִיא לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית. אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: כׇּל הַמּוֹנֵעַ הֲלָכָה מִפִּי תַּלְמִיד, אֲפִילּוּ עוּבָּרִין שֶׁבִּמְעֵי אִמָּן מְקַלְּלִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֹנֵעַ בָּר
Rav Yehuda reports Rav’s teaching that withholding a Torah teaching from a student is like robbing the student of an ancestral inheritance, since Torah has been all Israel’s inheritance from the six days of creation. Rav Ḥana bar Bizna reports Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida’s addition that even fetuses curse the one who withholds it. This shifts the discussion to responsibility for transmitting Torah; the supplied segment ends at the opening of the verse cited for the second teaching.
Daf צ ע״א (90a): The World to Come, Resurrection, and Measure for Measure The Mishnah opens with a general principle about Israel’s share in the World to Come, then lists exceptions and specific figures, including a dispute about Manasseh. The Gemara explains the exclusion of one who denies resurrection through measure for measure. Elisha’s words to the officer provide biblical support: he will see the bounty whose possibility he denied, but will not enjoy it.
Daf צ ע״ב (90b): Resurrection, Terumah, and Scriptural Interpretation The page builds proofs for resurrection through close reading of verses and tests them against alternative interpretations. The terumah discussion emphasizes the responsibility involved in giving it, while the discussion of karet examines repeated wording and the role of repentance. At the page’s end, Caesar’s question remains open for the continuation.
Daf צ״א ע״א (91a): Resurrection, the Nations’ Claims, and Body and Soul in Judgment The answers about resurrection draw on the comparison between initial creation and renewed life, and on the analogy of repair. In Geviha’s disputes, the Torah cited by the claimants also becomes the foundation of his response. The page ends by opening a discussion of body and soul, before Rabbi’s parable is completed.
Daf צ״א ע״ב (91b): Body and Soul, Resurrection, and Torah as an Inheritance The page connects the responsibility of body and soul with resurrection, healing, and future song. Its argument is built from parables, reasoning, and close readings of verses. It closes by opening a discussion of the responsibility to teach Torah, the inheritance of all Israel.
Make a table for segments 8–11. In each row, record the two descriptions of the future, their apparent conflict, and the distinction that resolves it; note how Shmuel’s position changes the resolution.
The page connects the responsibility of body and soul with resurrection, healing, and future song. Its argument is built from parables, reasoning, and close readings of verses. It closes by opening a discussion of the responsibility to teach Torah, the inheritance of all Israel.
Test yourself before marking the lesson complete.
Why does the orchard owner judge the two watchmen together?
