The sources cited by the sages of the Gemara

With regard to Babylonia, the Gemara cites what Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed along with it. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed. When Babylonia was cursed its neighbors were cursed along with it, as it is written: “I will also make it a possession for the bittern, a wading bird, and pools of water” (Isaiah 14:23); not only will it be destroyed, but the site will become a habitat for destructive, environmentally harmful creatures. When Samaria was cursed, however, its neighbors were blessed, as it is written: “Therefore I will make Samaria a heap in the field, a place for the planting of vineyards” (Micah 1:6); although destroyed, it will serve a beneficial purpose. And Rav Hamnuna said: One who sees multitudes of Israel, six hundred thousand Jews, recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. One who sees multitudes of gentiles recites: “Your mother shall be sore ashamed, she that bore you shall be confounded; behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert” (Jeremiah 50:12). The Sages taught in a Tosefta : One who sees multitudes of Israel recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. Why is this? He sees a whole nation whose minds are unlike each other and whose faces are unlike each other, and He Who knows all secrets, God, knows what is in each of their hearts. The Gemara relate…

And there are those who reverse the attribution of the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef with regard to this matter. The mishna teaches that if a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. The Sages taught: If one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, one writes on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you write the document, one writes it in the presence of them all. If he said: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, one person brings it on behalf of them all. If he said: All of you deliver a bill of divorce, then one brings it in the presence of them all. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If he said: Write a bill of divorce, and he enumerated them by name, what is the halakha ? Can one of them write the bill of divorce on behalf of them all? Or perhaps it is comparable to a situation where one says: All of you write, when it must be written in the presence of them all. Rav Huna says: If one enumerated them by name, it is not comparable to saying: All of you write. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: If one enumerated them by name, it is comparable to saying: All of you write. Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree. This is referring to a case where he enumerated them all, and that is referring to a case where he enumerated some of them. S…

in the heavenly entourage [ pamalia ] of angels each of whom ministers to a specific nation (see Daniel 10), and whose infighting causes war on earth; and in the earthly entourage, the Sages, and among the disciples engaged in the study of Your Torah, whether they engage in its study for its own sake or not for its own sake. And all those engaged in Torah study not for its own sake, may it be Your will that they will come to engage in its study for its own sake. After his prayer, Rabbi Alexandri said the following: May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You station us in a lighted corner and not in a darkened corner, and do not let our hearts become faint nor our eyes dim. Some say that this was the prayer that Rav Hamnuna would recite, and that after Rabbi Alexandri prayed, he would say the following: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us? On the one hand, the yeast in the dough, the evil inclination that is within every person; and the subjugation to the kingdoms on the other. May it be Your will that You will deliver us from their hands, of both the evil inclination and the foreign kingdoms, so that we may return to perform the edicts of Your will with a perfect heart. After his prayer, Rava said the following: My God, before I was created I was worthless, and now that I have been created it i…

We learned in the mishna that when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat, burning the fats of the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat. The Gemara notes that it was taught in the Tosefta : Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. For burning the fats and limbs and inner fats is valid all night and it would have been possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nonetheless we do not wait with them until nightfall; rather, we burn them immediately, even on Shabbat. The mishna also taught that carrying the Paschal lamb through a public domain, bringing it from outside the Shabbat limit and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. The Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna in tractate Eiruvin , which teaches: One may cut off a wart by hand on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country outside the Temple. And if the wart is to be removed with an instrument, it is forbidden both here, in the Temple, and there, outside the Temple. From here we see that in the Temple cutting off a wart, at least by hand, is permitted. Two amora’im , Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, disagreed about how to resolve this contradiction. One of them said: Both this mishna in Pesaḥim and that mishna in Eiruvin speak of cutting off the wart by hand. This mishna that forbids cutting it off refers to a moist…

The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: I will give you money for half of the feast; just do not send me away. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza then said to him: I will give you money for the entire feast; just let me stay. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Finally, the host took bar Kamtza by his hand, stood him up, and took him out. After having been cast out from the feast, bar Kamtza said to himself: Since the Sages were sitting there and did not protest the actions of the host, although they saw how he humiliated me, learn from it that they were content with what he did. I will therefore go and inform [ eikhul kurtza ] against them to the king. He went and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor said to him: Who says that this is the case? Bar Kamtza said to him: Go and test them; send them an offering to be brought in honor of the government, and see whether they will sacrifice it. The emperor went and sent with him a choice three-year-old calf. While bar Kamtza was coming with the calf to the Temple, he made a blemish on the calf’s upper lip. And some say he made the blemish on its eyelids, a place where according to us, i.e., halakha , it is a blemish, but according to them, gentile rules for their offerings, it is not a blemish. Therefore, when bar Kamtza brought the animal to the Temple…

The mishna relates that a student recited a halakha before Rabbi Akiva, and he did not accept the student’s version of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Rabbi Akiva said: They disagree about this, an alleyway less than four cubits wide, and about that, an alleyway more than four cubits wide. The Gemara asks: In that case, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is identical with the opinion first tanna of the mishna, as he too holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in all cases, irrespective of the width of the alleyway. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha stated by Rav Aḥlai, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel, that an alleyway less than four handbreadths wide requires no corrective action. However, their respective opinions are not defined; which tanna accepts the view of Rav Aḥlai and which tanna rejects it cannot be determined. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter, as it is unlikely that Rabbi Yishmael would err in this manner; rather, it was that disciple who stated that matter on his own, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that disciple. With regard to that baraita the Gemara asks: This baraita itself is difficult. You stated initially that Rabbi Yishmael did not state this matter; apparently the halakha is not in accordance with the…

And that is the background for the following exchange, as a certain heretic said to Rabbi Abbahu: When will the Messiah come? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: He will come when the darkness will enshroud these people, i.e., you. The heretic said to him: Are you cursing me for no reason? Rabbi Abbahu said to him, I am merely relating to you a verse that is written: “For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and fog the peoples; but the Lord shall shine upon you, and His glory shall be seen upon you” (Isaiah 60:2). § It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Eliezer says: The messianic era will be forty years long, as it is stated: “Forty years will I strive with the generation” (Psalms 95:10). The forty years of strife with the gentiles will be followed by the glory days of the Messiah. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The messianic era will last seventy years, as it is stated: “And it shall come to pass on that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king” (Isaiah 23:15). In this context, one [ eḥad ], means unique [ meyuḥad ]. Which is the unique king? You must say that this is a reference to the Messiah. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The messianic era will last three generations, as it is stated: “May they fear You as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout the generations [ dor dorim ]” (Psalms 72:5). Dor is singular and dorim is plural, for a total…

Even if the one who committed adultery performs charitable deeds secretly, as alluded to in the phrase “hand to hand,” and even if one might think that one who does so will go unpunished, as it is written with regard to charity of this kind: “A gift in secret pacifies wrath” (Proverbs 21:14), nevertheless, he will not be unpunished from the judgment of Gehenna. § The Gemara previously discussed the impropriety of the trait of arrogance. Now the Gemara discusses the source of its prohibition. From where is the warning derived, i.e., what is the source prohibiting the behavior of the arrogant? Rava says that Ze’eiri says: The source is from the verse: “Hear, you, and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord has spoken” (Jeremiah 13:15). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said the warning is from here: “Then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:14), and it is also written in that same passage: “Beware lest you forget the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:11). The Gemara explains: And these sources are in accordance with a statement that Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says, as Rabbi Avin says that Rabbi Ile’a says: Wherever it is stated in a verse “beware,” “lest,” or “not,” this is nothing other than a prohibition. Since these verses employ these terms in the context of one who is arrogant, they serve as sources for the prohibition. Rav Avira interpreted the fol…

Some say a different version of this statement: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged, due to the prohibition: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. How then does Rabbi Yoḥanan say that he is flogged, which by definition is a punishment for individuals who have transgressed a Torah law? The Gemara answers: It was he who said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of that tanna , as it is taught in a baraita : A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair violates the prohibition of: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment.” The Gemara asks: And what does the first tanna , who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic law, learn from this verse: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in the baraita , where it states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already sta…

And Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, in the following manner: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden. In what case is this statement said? In a case when the fetus’s months of gestation were not completed; but in a case when its months of gestation were completed, it is permitted for consumption even outside the womb. This excludes a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even in a case where its months of gestation were completed, if it emerged into the airspace of the world, it is forbidden, whereas if it is found in the womb of its mother, it is permitted. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav: In the case of a woman who discharges an entity that has a shapeless body, i.e., it does not have the outline of limbs, or an entity that has a shapeless head, one might have thought that its mother should be impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Therefore, the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:…

to a bonfire, where the fire is in the center and pots surround it. Similarly, the table of an ignoramus is arranged with the food in the center and is surrounded by plates. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the bed of Torah scholars be kept? He replied: It is acceptable as long as there is nothing except sandals beneath it during the summer, and shoes beneath it during the rainy season, i.e., winter. And the bed of an ignoramus is similar to a cluttered [ balus ] storehouse, as he keeps a wide array of items beneath it. § Having mentioned Rabbi Bena’a, the Gemara relates an incident in which he was involved. Rabbi Bena’a was marking burial caves for the purpose of helping to prevent the contracting of ritual impurity. When he arrived at the cave of Abraham, i.e., the Cave of Machpelah, he encountered Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who was standing before the entrance. Rabbi Bena’a said to him: What is Abraham doing at this moment? Eliezer said to him: He is lying in the arms of Sarah, and she is examining his head. Rabbi Bena’a said to him: Go tell him that Bena’a is standing at the entrance, so that he should assume an appropriate position to receive a visitor. Eliezer said to him: Let him, i.e., Rabbi Bena’a, enter, since it is known that there is no evil inclination in this higher world, so it is not inappropriate for Rabbi Bena’a to see Abraham and Sarah in this position.…

The Gemara challenges: But even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, let one redeem them after they were slaughtered and then cover their blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal we require setting and valuating, i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed. The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintenance, was included in the requirement of setting and valuating, and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is nevertheless considered a halakhic act of slaughter that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed. The Gemara continues: And if one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitt…

spit and did not recite the verses, her ḥalitza is valid. If she spat but did not remove the shoe and did not recite the text, her ḥalitza is disqualified. If she recited the verses but did not spit or did not remove the shoe, there is no doubt that she has done nothing, and her action has no halakhic significance. The Gemara clarifies: Who is the author of the baraita ? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, could it be that he would hold that if she removed the shoe but did not spit or did not recite the verses, her ḥalitza is valid, as stated in the baraita ? But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: The phrase “so shall it be done” (Deuteronomy 25:9) indicates that any element of the ḥalitza process that constitutes an action is indispensable; therefore spitting is necessary. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and he teaches at the end of the baraita that if she spat but did not remove the shoe or did not recite the text, her ḥalitza is disqualified. The Gemara clarifies: To whom is the yevama disqualified from marrying after such a ḥalitza ? If we say that Rabbi Akiva means to teach us that she is disqualified from marriage to everyone in the world, this is unnecessary, as it is clear that spitting alone will not permit her to marry any stranger. It is obvious that her ḥalitza is invalid, as did any ḥalitz…

The E TERNAL passed before him and proclaimed: “G OD ! G OD ! a Deity compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness,

G OD has broken the staff of the wicked, The rod of tyrants,

His hands are rods of gold, Studded with beryl; His belly a tablet of ivory, Adorned with sapphires.

but no, he may not perform ḥalitza . The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a halakhically competent woman who later became a deaf-mute, and ḥalitza performed by a deaf-mute does not have the power to undo a levirate bond that is valid by Torah law. Come and hear proof from a baraita : Two halakhically competent brothers are married to two unrelated women, one who is halakhically competent and one who is a deaf-mute. If the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute, dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman do? He consummates the levirate marriage with the deaf-mute, and if he later wishes to divorce her, he may divorce her. But if the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the halakhically competent woman dies, what should the halakhically competent man who is the husband of the female deaf-mute do? He may either perform ḥalitza or consummate the levirate marriage. What, is it not the case in this baraita that since he is halakhically competent from the outset, one may presume that she is a deaf-mute from the outset as well? And it is taught yes, he may consummate the levirate marriage with the yevama who is a deaf-mute, but no, he may not perform ḥalitza to her, thereby indicating that ḥalitza cannot be performed even though as a deaf-mute from the outset, she is a yev…

Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia. The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli. The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud…

He happened upon an exceedingly ugly person, who said to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, but Rabbi Elazar did not return his greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar said to him: Worthless [ reika ] person, how ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you? The man said to him: I do not know, but you should go and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. When Rabbi Elazar realized that he had sinned and insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, he descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said to the man: I have sinned against you; forgive me. The man said to him: I will not forgive you until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made. He walked behind the man, trying to appease him, until they reached Rabbi Elazar’s city. The people of his city came out to greet him, saying to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my rabbi, my master, my master. The man said to them: Who are you calling my rabbi, my rabbi? They said to him: To this man, who is walking behind you. He said to them: If this man is a rabbi, may there not be many like him among the Jewish people. They asked him: For what reason do you say this? He said to them: He did such and such to me. They said to him: Even so, forgive him, as he is a great Torah scholar. He said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provid…

but he does become impure for a met mitzva . Here too, the question is asked: Let us say that the obligation to bury a met mitzva , which is predicated on the preservation of human dignity, should not override mitzvot explicitly written in the Torah, as it is stated: “There is neither wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord.” The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is explicitly written: “And his sister,” from which we derive that although he may not become ritually impure to bury his sister, he must do so for a met mitzva . The Gemara suggests: Let us derive a general principle that human dignity takes precedence over all mitzvot in the Torah from this case. This possibility is rejected: This is a special case, because a case of “sit and refrain from action” [ shev ve’al ta’aseh ] is different. Engaging in the burial of a met mitzva is not actually in contravention of a mitzva. Rather, by doing so he becomes ritually impure and is then rendered incapable of fulfilling that mitzva. We cannot derive a general principle from here that human dignity would also override a Torah prohibition in a case where that prohibition is directly contravened. The Gemara responds: In the context of the discussion whether or not human dignity overrides honoring God in the sense of fulfilling his mitzvot, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about the earlier generat…

If a snake, which kills other creatures whose carcasses are impure and thereby increases impurity in the world, is itself nevertheless pure, as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? This argument is rejected: But it is not so; the logic of the halakha of a creeping animal is just as it is concerning the halakha with regard to an ordinary thorn, which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the halakhot of impurity. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to any city that does not have among its residents two men who are able to speak all seventy languages and one additional man who is able to listen to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, they do not place a lesser Sanhedrin there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. And in Beitar there were three individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, and in Yavne there were four, and they were: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, who was not an ordained Sage, and he would…

embedded in the thickness of the wall of the reticulum, where the halakha is as follows: If the needle protrudes from one side, i.e., the inner side of the stomach wall, the animal is kosher, but if it protrudes from both sides, it is a tereifa ; and if it protrudes only on the inside we do not say: See if the eye of the needle is facing outward or if the eye of the needle is facing inward? Rather, the animal is deemed kosher even if the eye is facing outward, and that is not considered evidence that the needle perforated through the gullet into the chest cavity and then perforated the thickness of the reticulum. The Sages say in response: There, in the case of the reticulum, since there are food and liquid present, one may say that the food and liquid pushed the eye of the needle through the stomach wall. Therefore, even if the eye points outward, one may still presume that the needle came from the inside, and the animal is kosher. 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. The Gemara relates that there was…

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Jehoshaphat would not have separated himself from Ahab to eat and drink by himself, as he relied on him completely. From where do we derive this? If we say that it is derived from that which is written that Jehoshaphat said to Ahab: “I am as you are, my people as your people” (I Kings 22:4), i.e., I am equally reliable, this is difficult, as, if that is so, then when Jehoshaphat said at the conclusion of that verse: “My horses as your horses,” can this also be referring to reliability? Rather, Jehoshaphat’s intention was: That which will befall your horses will befall my horses; so too, that which will befall you and your people will befall me and my people. Rather, it is derived that Jehoshaphat relied upon Ahab from here: “And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria” (I Kings 22:10). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term threshing floor in this context? If we say that it was an actual threshing floor; is that to say that the gate of Samaria was a threshing floor? Typically, the gate of a city was the place of assembly for the city’s judges and elders, not a threshing floor. Rather, they were sitting in a configuration like that of a circular threshing floor, i.e., facing each other in a display of amity, as we l…

The ravens brought him bread and meat every morning and every evening, and he drank from the wadi.

However, if the yavam was a minor, or if the yevama performed ḥalitza while he was wearing a soft shoe made of cloth [ anpileya ] and not the shoe used for ḥalitza , then these acts of ḥalitza are invalid, and in these cases they do not disqualify her from entering into levirate marriage. The Gemara quotes another opinion with regard to the question of which of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna would disqualify the woman from marrying a priest. Ze’eiri says: Reception of any of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest except in the final case, where the husband instructed the scribe to write a bill of divorce for one of his wives and explained that he would later decide which wife would be given the bill of divorce. And similarly, Rav Asi says: Reception of any of the bills of divorce mentioned in the mishna does not disqualify the woman from marrying a priest except in the final case. But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even in the final case, that bill of divorce does not disqualify her from marrying a priest as well, as even that bill of divorce is not a bill of divorce at all. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, there is no concern that retroactive clarification will determine that the bill of divorce was written for the sake of the woman who received it, while the amora’im who hold that the woman is disqualified from marrying…

Rather, it is obvious that Beit Hillel hold that the bailee pays in accordance with its value at the time of its removal from the owner’s house, i.e., at the time of the misappropriation. The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Rabba stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and not the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara rejects this: Rabba could have said to you: With regard to a subsequent increase in the value of the misappropriated deposit, everyone, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the bailee pays in accordance with its value when the deposit was destroyed. When they disagree, it is in the case of a subsequent decrease in the value of the misappropriated deposit. Rabba clarifies: Beit Shammai hold that misappropriation does not require loss, and even if the deposit remains intact, his legal status is that of a robber from the moment of misappropriation. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in his possession. Therefore, he pays in accordance with its value at the time of misappropriation. And Beit Hillel hold that misappropriation requires loss, and only when the deposit decreases in value after the misappropriation is the bailee liable to pay. And therefore, when the value of the misappropriated deposit decreases, it decreases in the possession of its owner. Therefore, he pays in accordance…

If one’s single kav of wheat became mingled with ten kav of another’s wheat, shall the latter eat all eleven kav and rejoice? One does not allow his property to become nullified into someone else’s property. The same applies to water and salt in dough. The Sages laughed at him. He said to them: Did I take your cloaks from you that you are putting me to shame? They again laughed at him. Rabbi Oshaya said: They did well to laugh at him. They were correct that the two cases are dissimilar, as they reasoned as follows: What is different about a case of wheat belonging to one person that became mingled with barley of another, that Rabbi Abba did not say this case to them as an example? He specifically chose an example of wheat mingling with other wheat and not that case of barley because that is one type mingled with something that is not its same type. The principle is: A type of food mixed with a large amount of food not of its own type becomes nullified, and this principle applies even when the two foods belong to two different people. If so, the same may be said when wheat of one individual is mixed with wheat of another as well. Although, according to Rabbi Yehuda, an item mingled with another item of the same type is not nullified, according to the Rabbis it is certainly nullified. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Oshaya: Moses! This is a term of reverence for the leader of the generat…

“They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22). Based on that verse, Rav Yehuda held that since the Babylonian exile was imposed by divine decree, permission to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael could be granted only by God. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira interpret that verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira maintains that that verse is written about the Temple service vessels, and it does not refer to the Jewish people, as the previous verse states: “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that remain in the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:21). Consequently, Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Yehuda respond to this argument? The verse is clearly referring to the Temple vessels, not to the people. The Gemara answers that another verse is written: “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that you not awaken or stir up love, until it please” (Song of Songs 2:7). Rabbi Yehuda derived from here that no act of redemption should be performed until a time arrives when it pleases God to bring about the redemption. And Rabbi Zeira maintains that the oath mentioned in that verse means that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, i.e., en masse, whereas indi…

since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth are to bless themselves by him?

to rise up against Moses, together with certain other Israelites, two hundred and fifty of them: chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute.

Go up to the hills and get timber, and rebuild the House; then I will look on it with favor and I will be glorified—said G OD .