תלמוד בבלי

1The Gemara elaborates: From the fact that it was necessary for Hillel to institute that giving against the will of the receiver is considered giving, in the case of houses of walled cities, one may infer that in general, giving against the will of the recipient is not considered giving.

2Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say that it was Rav Ashi who objected: But perhaps when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer; but if he repays the buyer in his presence, then whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

3There are those who say an opposite version of this discussion, i.e., that Rava says: One may infer from the ordinance of Hillel that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave it to him, whether it was with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is a valid act of giving. And this is because when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer. But if the seller repays him in his presence, whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

4Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say it was Rav Shimi bar Ashi who objected: But perhaps, whether she gives him the money in his presence or not in his presence, if she gives it with his consent, yes, it is valid, but if she gives it against his will, it is not considered a valid act of giving. And Hillel instituted what was necessary, to remedy the practical occurrence that buyers would hide themselves at the end of the year. But even if the seller finds the buyer and the buyer refuses to accept payment, it would be necessary for Hillel to institute an ordinance.

5MISHNA The halakhic status of any area that is located within the city wall is like that of the houses of walled cities in terms of its redemption, except for the fields located therein. Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields are included in this category. With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities. Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall, and therefore it has the status of a house in a walled city.

6GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). I have derived only that this is the halakha with regard to a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” indicating that anything situated within the city is included. If so, one might have thought that I should include even the fields that are inside the city. Therefore, the verse states: “House,” which excludes a field; it does not resemble a house in any way, since it does not contain any items. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

7Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: “House.” I have derived only a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves, and even fields? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” to include anything inside the city.

8The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn’t it written: “House”? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word “house”? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term “house” serves to exclude a field. The difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a quarry and a sand bed. According to Rabbi Meir, such areas are considered similar to houses and are therefore included in the halakha . The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita : With regard to a quarry and a sand bed inside the walls of a city, Rabbi Meir says: They are considered like houses, and Rabbi Yehuda says: They are considered like fields.

9§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities, and Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was upon the side of the wall; and she dwelt upon the wall” (Joshua 2:15). Rabbi Shimon holds that the last phrase should be understood in accordance with the simple meaning of the verse, that her house was attached to the outer wall and it was considered inside the walled city; and Rabbi Yehuda holds that “she dwelt upon the wall” means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.

10MISHNA The halakhic status of a house in a city whose houses are attached and their rooftops constitute the top of its wall, and likewise, the status of a house in a city that is not surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, even if a surrounding wall was constructed during a later period, is not like that of the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of walled cities: Any city in which there are at least three courtyards, each containing two houses, and which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, e.g., the ancient fort [ katzra ] of Tzippori, and the fortress [ ḥakra ] of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.

11GEMARA With regard to the statement of the mishna that the halakhic status of a house in a city whose rooftops constitute the top of its wall is not like that of the houses of walled cities, the Sages taught: When the verse states: “The house that is in the city that has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), this is referring specifically to a city that has an actual wall and not merely a wall of roofs. When the next verse states: “But the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,” this serves to exclude Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.

12Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [ lo ] a wall,” with lo written with an alef , according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

13§ The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities. The Sages taught in a baraita : Gamla is in the Galilee, and Gedod is in Transjordan, and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem are in Judea. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Are these the only walled cities in the Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea?

1Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: Until Gamla in the Galilee, i.e., all towns in the Galilee from Gamla southward were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun; and likewise, all towns until Gedod in Transjordan, which is the easternmost city, were surrounded by a wall; and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun.

2Rava said a different explanation: The baraita is elucidating the mishna, which mentions these cities. The baraita is teaching that the Gamla referred to in the mishna is the one in the Galilee, to the exclusion of any Gamla found in other lands, i.e., Judea and Transjordan. Likewise, Gedod is the one in Transjordan, to the exclusion of Gedod in other lands, Judea and the Galilee. In the same vein, Ḥadid, Ono, and Jerusalem are specifically the cities in Judea known by those names. With regard to those other cities mentioned in the mishna, e.g., Yodfat, since there are no cities in other lands with similar names, it was not necessary for the tanna of the baraita to state them.

3The Gemara asks: And is ownership of a house in Jerusalem transferred in perpetuity to the buyer after one year, in the manner of houses of walled cities? But isn’t it taught in a baraita : Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, one of which is that ownership of a house situated in Jerusalem is not transferred in perpetuity one year after its sale?

4Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tanna means that ownership of a house may be transferred in perpetuity in any city that is like Jerusalem, i.e., which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, but the halakha with regard to such a city is not like Jerusalem itself, since while with regard to Jerusalem, ownership of a house inside it is not transferred in perpetuity, here, with regard to cities similar to Jerusalem, a house in them may be transferred in perpetuity to the buyer. Rav Ashi said a different answer: Didn’t Rav Yosef say in resolution of another difficulty: There were two places called Kadesh? Here, too, one can say that there were two places called Jerusalem in Judea, and the mishna is referring to the one where ownership of houses transfers in perpetuity.

5§ With regard to the cities listed in the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Why did the Sages count specifically these cities as those walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? They counted them because when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and sanctified them; but the sanctity of the first walled cities was nullified when the sanctity of the land was nullified and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua consecrated it for its time, until the exile, but did not consecrate Eretz Yisrael forever.

6The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction from another baraita : Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And were these cities enumerated in the mishna the only walled cities from the days of Joshua? But isn’t it already stated: “There was not a city that we took not from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob…all these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5)? Rather, why did the Sages specifically count these cities? They counted them because when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and sanctified them. The Gemara interjects: Can the baraita really mean that they sanctified them? But we say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to sanctify them. Rather, the baraita means that they found these cities and counted them in the mishna.

7The baraita continues: And not only these; rather, with regard to any city for which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot of walled cities are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time and consecrated it forever. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal.

8The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that this is a dispute between two tanna’im , and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. And if you wish, say instead that one of the baraitot , specifically the second one, was actually said by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [ lo ] a wall,” with lo written with an alef , according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

9§ The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time, but did not consecrate it forever? As it is taught in a baraita : It is written with regard to the return from Babylonia: “And all the congregation of those that were coming back out of the captivity made sukkot , and dwelt in sukkot , for since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, unto that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great joy” (Nehemiah 8:17). Now, is it possible that King David came and the Jews in his time and all subsequent generations did not make sukkot , until Ezra came?

10Rather, when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” it means to compare their arrival in Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra to their arrival in the days of Joshua: Just as with regard to their arrival in the days of Joshua, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities, so too, with regard to their arrival in the days of Ezra, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities.

11And so it says with regard to the return of the Jews from exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it” (Deuteronomy 30:5). The verse compares your possession to the possession of your fathers: Just as the possession of your fathers came with the renewal of all these matters, i.e., the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year, and terumot and tithes, so too your possession comes with the renewal of all these matters, as the initial consecration was nullified.

12The Gemara asks: And the tanna who maintains the other opinion, that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal, how does he interpret the verse in Nehemiah? The Gemara answers that when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” this is not referring to actual sukkot ; rather, the verse means that Ezra prayed for mercy with regard to the evil inclination of idol worship and nullified it, and the merit of his prayer protected them like a sukka .

13The Gemara adds: And this is the reason that the verse criticizes Joshua for not praying for the removal of this inclination himself. How is this criticism indicated in the verse? As in every other place in the Bible, his name is written as: Yehoshua, and here it is written: Yeshua. The Gemara explains why the verse singles out Joshua for criticism: Granted, Moses, the first leader of the Jewish people, did not pray for mercy that this inclination should be removed, as at the time there was no merit of Eretz Yisrael; but Joshua, who had the merit of Eretz Yisrael, why didn’t he pray for mercy that this inclination should be nullified?

14The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion that the initial consecration was not nullified, isn’t it written: “Which your fathers possessed and you shall possess it”? This verse apparently indicates that it was necessary to sanctify Eretz Yisrael a second time. The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, this is what the verse is saying: Since your fathers possessed the land, you too possess it, and there is no need to sanctify it again.

1The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the Rabbis, who say that the fiftieth year is not included in the counting of the cycle of Sabbatical Years. It was therefore necessary to count the Jubilee Year. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the subsequent cycle, why do I need for them to count the Jubilee Years? If the Jubilee Year is not in effect, then it is enough to count the Sabbatical Years. The Gemara explains: That baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

2The Gemara asks: And did they not count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years once the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled? But isn’t it written that Jeremiah, who lived many years later, said: “At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that has been sold unto you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you; but your fathers did not listen unto Me, nor inclined their ear” (Jeremiah 34:14)?

3The Gemara continues: And we discussed this verse: Why does it state: “At the end of seven years you shall let go every man”? But isn’t it written in the same verse: “And has served you six years”? And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse is referring to two separate individuals. The phrase “and has served you six years” is referring to a typical Hebrew slave who was sold, who goes free after six years (see Exodus 21:2), and the phrase “at the end of seven years” is referring to a slave whose ear was pierced with an awl to extend his tenure. Such an individual remains a slave until the Jubilee Year, even if that is the following year, i.e., the end of the seventh year. If so, the verse indicates that the Jubilee Year was in effect in the times of Jeremiah, even though the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled.

4The Gemara answers: That verse was not stated by Jeremiah in the form of a command; rather, it is written in the form of reproof. That is, the prophet Jeremiah is saying to the Jewish people: Did you send free the pierced slaves when the Jubilee Year was observed? The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written there: “And they listened and let them go” (Jeremiah 34:10)? Evidently, the entire passage is referring to matters occurring in the present.

5Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Indeed, the Jubilee Year was not in effect once the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled. But Jeremiah brought back all the exiled tribes, and Josiah, son of Amon, ruled over them. And from where do we derive that Jeremiah brought them back? As it is written: “For the seller shall not return to that which he has sold” (Ezekiel 7:13). Ezekiel prophesied that there will come a time when fields will not be returned to the owners in the Jubilee Year. Now, is it possible that the Jubilee Year had already been nullified and yet the prophet is prophesying that it will be annulled in the future? Rather, this teaches that Jeremiah brought back the exiled tribes.

6And from where do we derive that Josiah ruled over all the ten tribes exiled by Assyria? As it is written: “And as Josiah turned himself, then he spied the sepulchres… then he said: What monument is that which I see? And the men of the city told him: It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel” (II Kings 23:16–17).

7Now, what connection does Josiah, king of Judah, have with the altar at Bethel, a city in the kingdom of Israel? Rather, this indicates that when Jeremiah brought back the ten tribes, Josiah ruled over them. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The fact that the tribes returned may be derived from here: “Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people” (Hosea 6:11). That is, when the ten tribes will return from their captivity, a king of Judah will rule over them.

8MISHNA With regard to the houses of the unwalled courtyards mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 25:31), i.e., houses in villages that are not surrounded by walls, one accords them the exceptional provisions that apply to houses of walled cities and the exceptional provisions that apply to fields. Therefore, they are redeemed immediately and for the entire twelve months following the sale, like in the sale of houses of walled cities, and not like fields, which may be redeemed only after two years. And they leave the possession of the buyer during the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, like the sale of fields. By contrast, houses of walled cities become the possession of the buyer in perpetuity after one year, and if they are redeemed within the year, one pays the full sale price.

9GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: “But the houses of the courtyards that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:31). The verse juxtaposed houses of unwalled courtyards to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with the per annum deduction from the money of the sale price.

10The baraita continues: If one derives the halakha from an ancestral field, then just as an ancestral field may not be redeemed less than two years after its sale, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards may not be redeemed less than two years after their sale. Therefore, the verse states: “They may be redeemed,” indicating that they may be redeemed immediately. The baraita continues: Since you have accorded houses of the unwalled courtyards the exceptional provisions that apply to fields and the exceptional provisions that apply to the houses of walled cities, one might have thought that they do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee.”

11The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying in the last clause, i.e., why might one think that such houses do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year? After all, ancestral fields leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, and the tanna teaches that the exceptional provisions of an ancestral field apply to houses in unwalled courtyards. Rav Huna said: The verse is necessary only for the case of one who consecrates a house among the houses of the unwalled courtyards, and another redeemed it from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the Jubilee Year arrived in the second year after its redemption.

12Rav Huna elaborates: To what will you compare this case? If you compare this house to houses of walled cities that were consecrated and redeemed by another, then the house belongs to the buyer in perpetuity by the end of the first year (see 31b). If you compare it to an ancestral field that was consecrated and redeemed by another, it leaves to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year (see 25a). For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee,” to teach that houses in unwalled courtyards which were consecrated and redeemed by another are returned to their owners in the Jubilee Year.

13Rav Zeira objects to this: Why is it necessary to interpret this verse as referring specifically to a case where another redeemed the house from the Temple treasury? Even if another did not redeem it, the house should also be returned to its owner in the Jubilee Year, as the verse states simply: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee.” Abaye said to Rav Zeira: An unredeemed house is not returned to its owners in the Jubilee Year, so that people will not say that consecrated property can leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption.

14The Gemara adds: And from where do we derive that consecrated property does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption? We derive it from the halakha with regard to a Levite: And what, if with regard to a Levite, whose power is enhanced with regard to his sale, as a Levite may always redeem a field or house that he sold (see mishna in 33b), his power is diminished with regard to his consecration, as a field that he consecrated does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury until he redeems it; then with regard to an Israelite, whose power is diminished with regard to his sale, since if he sells an ancestral field he may not redeem it for the first two years, and he may redeem a house of a walled city only within one year of the sale, is it not logical that his power is diminished with regard to his consecration and that if he consecrated a house of an unwalled courtyard he must redeem it from the Temple treasury before it enters his possession?

1MISHNA And these are the houses of the unwalled courtyards whose halakha was taught in the previous mishna: Any city in which there are two courtyards each containing two houses, although it is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, their halakhic status is like that of the houses of the unwalled courtyards.

2GEMARA The Sages taught: By inference from that which is stated: “The houses of the courtyards” (Leviticus 25:31), do I not know that they have no wall around them? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Which have no wall”? It means that there are certain places that even though they have a wall, they are considered like places that do not have a wall. And how many, i.e., what is considered such a place? The term “houses” indicates a minimum of two, and the term “courtyards” likewise indicates a minimum of two. Therefore, if a city has only two courtyards each containing two houses, its houses are considered like the houses of the unwalled courtyards.

3The Gemara objects: But you can say that the phrase: Houses of the courtyards, means one house and one courtyard, i.e., one house in each courtyard. Consequently, if each courtyard contains two houses, the city should be considered like a walled city. The Gemara explains: If so, let the Merciful One write: “Courtyards,” without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written only: “Courtyards,” then one might mistakenly have concluded that the verse indicates a courtyard without a house and that if the courtyard contains a house then the city is considered walled, one could not have arrived at that conclusion, since such an area is called an enclosure [ karpef ], not a courtyard.

4MISHNA An Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was a Levite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot ; rather, if he sold the inherited house, he may redeem it always, like a Levite. And likewise, a Levite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was an Israelite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot .

5The mishna provides the source for these halakhot : As it is stated: “And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year; as the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 25:33). The verse indicates that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only with regard to a house in the cities of the Levites, even if the owner was not a Levite.

6GEMARA The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if an Israelite sold a house in a walled city that he inherited from his mother’s father who was a Levite, he does not redeem it in accordance with the procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot . The Gemara asks: Rather, like whom does he redeem it? He redeems it like a Levite. But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then teaches that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites. If so, an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who is a Levite should redeem it in the manner of an Israelite.

7The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was a Levite redeems that house only in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot , i.e., he has only one year to redeem it, after which the house becomes the possession of the buyer in perpetuity. And this is always the halakha unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites, in which case he can always redeem it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

8The Gemara asks: Granted, the house must be from the cities of the Levites, as it is written: “As the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession” (Leviticus 25:33). But from where do we derive that the one selling the house must also be a Levite for these halakhot to apply? The Gemara responds: As it is written in the same verse: “And if a man purchases from the Levites …shall go out during the Jubilee Year.” The verse is referring specifically to a Levite who sells his house.

9The Gemara adds that it is likewise taught in a baraita : Given that the verse already states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32), why does the next verse state: “And if a man purchases from the Levites …shall go out during the Jubilee Year”?It is because one might have thought: A Levite may always redeem from an Israelite the house that he sold, as this Levite’s power was enhanced, in that he can redeem always, and that Israelite’s power was diminished, as he may redeem only within one year. But a Levite may not always redeem from another Levite, as this one’s power was enhanced and that one’s power was equally enhanced. Rather, the Levite may redeem only within one year of the sale. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a man purchases from the Levites,” which literally means: And if a man redeems from the Levites, which teaches that even a Levite who redeems a house purchased by another Levite can always redeem the house.

10The baraita continues: When the verse states: “From the Levites,” this teaches that some Levites may always redeem their houses, but not all the Levites. Excluded is a Levite who is a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [ mamzer ], or a Gibeonite, i.e., his mother is from the Gibeonites, as these are disqualified from entering the congregation of the Jewish people (see Yevamot 78a). If such a Levite inherited from his father and sold a house from the cities of the Levites, he does not redeem it as a Levite.

11The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only with regard to a house in the cities of the Levites, even if the owner was not a Levite. The Gemara explains: But according to the Rabbis, we do not say that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite. Rather, the Rabbis hold that anyone who inherits a portion in a Levite city may redeem that portion as a Levite, even if he himself is not a Levite.

12MISHNA: The Levites received two thousand cubits surrounding their cities, one thousand cubits of empty lots and one thousand cubits for fields and vineyards. One may neither render a field an empty lot nor an empty lot a field. Similarly, one may neither incorporate an empty lot into a city nor render part of a city an empty lot.

13Rabbi Elazar said: In what case is this statement said? It applies in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field an empty lot but not an empty lot a field, and one may incorporate an empty lot into a city but not render part of a city an empty lot, in order to ensure that they will not thereby destroy the cities of Israel. The priests and the Levites may sell their fields and houses always and may redeem them always, as it is stated: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.

14GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar said: In what case is this statement said? It is in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field an empty lot but not an empty lot a field, and one may incorporate an empty lot into a city but not render part of a city an empty lot, in order to ensure that they will not thereby destroy the cities of Israel. The Gemara asks: In any event, everyone agrees that in the cities of the Levites one may not change a field into an empty lot or an empty lot into a city. From where are these matters derived?

1both they and their empty lots. The Gemara objects: But they and their lots stand to be dismantled, as a city of the Levites may not be surrounded by a wall. How, then, can such a city be considered surrounded by a wall? Rav Ashi said: Nevertheless, it was necessary for the baraita to teach that if a Levite sells a house in such a city he may always redeem it, as it might enter your mind to say: When the walls are dismantled, then they are dismantled, but as long as they remain standing, if houses in the city are sold and are not redeemed within one year, let them belong to the buyer in perpetuity, in accordance with the halakha of houses of walled cities. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case.

2§ The Sages taught: The verse states, with regard to one who consecrated his ancestral field but failed to redeem it before the Jubilee Year: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). What is the meaning when the verse states: “As a field dedicated”? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated to the priests by an Israelite, and the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed leaves to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.

3The baraita continues: And this is the halakha despite the fact that the claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed before the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, should I not all the more so acquire it? Therefore, the verse states: “As a field dedicated, his ancestral field shall be for the priest,” which teaches that this is not the case.

4The baraita elaborates: But what have we learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field from now? The Torah does not explicitly state the halakha with regard to dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field came to teach a halakha with regard to an ancestral field, and it turns out that in addition it derives a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes the dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite that was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury leaves from his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests (see 25a), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that he consecrated leaves from his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests, at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

5The Gemara analyzes this baraita : The Master said: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated, then with regard to my own property, should I not acquire it all the more so? The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? There, with regard to an ancestral field that was consecrated and leaves to the possession of the priests, he merely acquires it as one of the priests, whereas here, with regard to a dedicated field that he consecrated, he seeks to take the entire field for himself. If so, there is no need for the verse to teach that the priest may not do so.

6Rami bar Ḥama said: Nevertheless, the verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” (Numbers 5:10), from which it is derived that a priest who brings an offering may sacrifice it and take for himself those portions intended for the priests and he is not required to give them to the members of the current priestly watch, perhaps this too, i.e., his dedicated field that he consecrated, is considered like his hallowed things, and he may take it for himself. Therefore, the verse serves to indicate that this is not the case.

7The Gemara asks: Are these cases comparable? His hallowed things, i.e., offerings brought by the priest, are not in his possession; rather, the priest receives the priestly portions from the table of the Most High, in exchange for performing the sacrificial rites. Here, the priest seeks to return the field to his possession.

8Rather, Rav Naḥman said: The verse was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that since it is written with regard to the fields of Levites and priests: “For that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34), from which it is derived that if a priest consecrated his ancestral field he may always redeem it, so too this dedicated field received by the priest is also considered his ancestral field, and if he consecrated it he may always redeem it. The juxtaposition of the dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite teaches us that this is not the halakha , as the verse states: “His ancestral field shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:31). The verse teaches that with regard to the ancestral field of a priest that he inherited from his father, yes, it remains in the possession of that priest in perpetuity, but with regard to his dedicated field, it does not remain in his possession in perpetuity; rather, it is divided among the members of the priestly watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

9We will return to you, “One who sold his field”...

1MISHNA: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles the following actions are prohibited, as they would bring joy to the gentile, who would subsequently give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival: It is prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend items to them or to borrow items from them; to lend money to them or to borrow money from them; and to repay debts owed to them or to collect repayment of debts from them. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment of debts from them because this causes the gentile distress. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Even though he is distressed now, when he repays the money, he is happy afterward that he is relieved of the debt, and therefore there is concern that he will give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival.

2GEMARA: Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the correct version of the text of the mishna. One teaches the term meaning: Their festivals, as eideihen , spelled with an alef as the first letter, and one teaches eideihen with an ayin as the first letter. The Gemara comments: The one who teaches eideihen with an alef is not mistaken, and the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin is not mistaken, as there is support for each version of the term.

3The Gemara elaborates: The one who teaches eideihen with an alef is not mistaken, as it is written: “For the day of their calamity [ eidam ] is at hand” (Deuteronomy 32:35), and the future downfall mentioned in the verse is partly due to the festivals of idol worshippers. The term there is spelled with an alef . And likewise, the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin is not mistaken, as it is written: “Let them bring their witnesses [ eideihem ], that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9), i.e., the festivals will serve as witnesses against gentile sinners, proving that they engaged in idol worship. The term there is spelled with an ayin .

4The Gemara asks: And according to the one who teaches eideihen with an alef , what is the reason that he did not teach eideihen with an ayin ? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that a term that refers to a calamity is preferable. The Gemara asks: And the one who teaches eideihen with an ayin , what is the reason that he did not teach eideihen with an alef ? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: What causes this calamity to happen to them? It is the testimony that they testified against themselves. Therefore, a term that references testimony is preferable.

5The Gemara asks: But is this verse: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified,” written with regard to the nations of the world? Isn’t it written with regard to the Jewish people? As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All the mitzvot that the Jews perform in this world will come and bear witness for them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified.” These are the Jews, as their good deeds bear witness for them and demonstrate their righteousness. When the verse states: “And let them hear, and say: It is truth” (Isaiah 43:9), these are the nations of the world, who will admit to the righteousness of the Jews.

6Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The one who says that the correct word is eideihen with an ayin derived this use of the term from here: “They that fashion a graven image are all of them vanity, and their delectable things shall not profit; and their own witnesses [ eideihem ] see not, nor know” (Isaiah 44:9). This demonstrates that the objects of idol worship will serve as witnesses against their worshippers.

7§ The Gemara cites homiletic interpretations of the verse that was discussed earlier: “All the nations are gathered together, and let the peoples be assembled; who among them can declare this, and announce to us former matters? Let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified; and let them hear, and say: It is truth” (Isaiah 43:9). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught, and some say that it was Rabbi Simlai who taught: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will bring a Torah scroll and place it in His lap and say: Anyone who engaged in its study should come and take his reward.

8Immediately, the nations of the world will gather together and come intermingled with each other, as it is stated: “All the nations are gathered together and let the peoples be assembled.” The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to them: Do not enter before Me intermingled; rather, let each and every nation enter

1with their scholars, as it is stated: “And let the peoples [ le’umim ] be assembled” (Isaiah 43:9); and the term le’om means nothing other than kingdom, as it is stated: “And the one kingdom [ ule’om ] shall be stronger than the other kingdom [ mile’om ]” (Genesis 25:23). The Gemara asks: But is it possible for there to be intermingling before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that it should be necessary for each nation to stand and be addressed separately? Rather, the nations are instructed to stand separately so that they will not become intermingled with each other in order that they will each hear what He says to them.

2Immediately, the Roman Empire enters first before Him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Roman Empire enters first? It is because the Roman Empire is the most important of all of the nations. And from where do we derive that it is the most important? As it is written in the book of Daniel with regard to the fourth empire that will rule over the world: “And it shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This empire that will devour the earth is the wicked Roman Empire, whose name spread throughout the world.

3The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that whoever is more important enters first? This is in accordance with a statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king enters for judgment first, as it is stated: “That He make the judgment of His servant and the judgment of His people Israel, as every day shall require” (I Kings 8:59). And what is the reason that it is important for the king to enter first? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community.

4The Gemara returns to its narration of the future judgment. First, the members of the Roman Empire enter. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: With what did you occupy yourselves? They say before Him in response: Master of the Universe, we have established many marketplaces, we have built many bathhouses, and we have increased much silver and gold. And we did all of this only for the sake of the Jewish people, so that they would be free to engage in Torah study.

5The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: Fools of the world! Are you attempting to deceive Me? Everything that you did, you did for your own needs. You established marketplaces to place prostitutes in them; you built bathhouses for your own enjoyment; and as for the silver and gold that you claim to have increased, it is Mine, as it is stated: “Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, said the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:8).

6Is there no one among you who can declare that they have studied this Torah? This is the meaning of the continuation of the verse from Isaiah, as it is stated: “Who among them can declare this?” (Isaiah 43:9). And “this” is referring to nothing other than the Torah, as it is stated: “And this is the Torah that Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44), and whoever did not engage in its study does not receive reward. Immediately, the members of the Roman Empire leave disappointed.

7The Roman Empire leaves, and the Persian Empire enters after it. What is the reason that the Persian Empire enters second? The reason is that after the Roman Empire it is the next most important. And from where do we derive this? As it is written in Daniel’s vision: “And behold another beast, a second, like a bear” (Daniel 7:5). And Rav Yosef teaches: These are the Persians, who are compared to a bear, as they eat and drink copious amounts as does a bear, and they are fleshy like a bear, and they grow their hair long as does a bear, and they never rest, like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another.

8The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: With what did you occupy yourselves? They say before Him in response: Master of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have conquered many cities, and we have fought many wars. And we did all of this only for the sake of the Jewish people, so that they would engage in Torah study.

9The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: Everything that you did, you did for your own needs. You established bridges to collect taxes from all who pass over them. You conquered cities to use their residents for forced labor [ angareya ]; and with regard to fighting the wars, I wage wars, and your success is from Me, as it is stated: “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3). Is there no one among you who can declare that they have studied this Torah? As it is stated: “Who among them can declare this” (Isaiah 43:9), and “this” is referring to nothing other than the Torah, as it is stated: “And this is the Torah that Moses set” (Deuteronomy 4:44). Immediately, the members of the Persian Empire leave from before Him disappointed.

10The Gemara asks: But once the Persian Empire sees that everything said by the Roman Empire is completely ineffective, what is the reason that they come forward? The Gemara answers: They believe that their claims will be more effective, as they say: The Romans destroyed the Second Temple, and we had built it, as the Second Temple was constructed under the auspices and with the encouragement of Cyrus, the king of Persia. The Gemara adds: And likewise, a similar exchange occurred with each and every nation.

11The Gemara asks: But once the other nations see that everything said by the first ones, Rome and Persia, is completely ineffective, what is the reason that they come forward? The Gemara answers that they think: Those Empires subjugated the Jewish people, but we did not subjugate the Jewish people. The Gemara further asks: What is different about these, Rome and Persia, which were singled out explicitly, and what is different about those other empires that come afterward, which were not singled out and mentioned by name? It is because with regard to these, Rome and Persia, their kingship extends until the coming of the Messiah.

12The nations will say before God: Master of the Universe, did You give us the Torah and we did not accept it? Since we never received the Torah, why are we being judged for not fulfilling its mitzvot? The Gemara asks: And can one say that they were never offered the Torah? But isn’t it written in the description of the giving of the Torah: “And he said: The Lord came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it is written: “God comes from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran” (Habakkuk 3:3). And the Sages asked: What did God require in Seir and what did He require in Paran? The Torah was not given in those locations.

13And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, took the Torah around to every nation and those who speak every language, such as the Edomites in Seir and the Ishmaelites in Paran, but they did not accept it, until He came to the Jewish people and they accepted it. If the other nations all rejected the Torah, how can they excuse themselves by claiming that it was never offered to them?

14Rather, this is what they say: Did we accept the Torah and then not fulfill its mitzvot? The Gemara asks: But this itself serves as the refutation of their own claim, as one can respond: Why didn’t you accept it? Rather, this is what the nations of the world say before Him: Master of the Universe, did You overturn the mountain above us like a basin, and we still did not accept the Torah, as You did for the Jewish people?

1This serves to say that even if they fulfill the seven Noahide mitzvot they do not receive a reward for their fulfilment.

2The Gemara asks: And are they not rewarded for fulfilling those mitzvot? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? The verse states: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a person do, and shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, but rather the general term “person.” From here you learn that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a High Priest. This demonstrates that gentiles are rewarded for fulfilling mitzvot, despite the fact that they are not commanded to do so.

3Rather, the verse serves to tell you that they do not receive as great a reward for their fulfillment as one who is commanded and performs a mitzva. Rather, they receive a lesser reward, like that of one who is not commanded and still performs a mitzva. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a mitzva and performs it than one who is not commanded and performs it.

4The Gemara returns to the discussion between God and the nations of the world, whose claims are rejected with the rebuttal that they did not receive the Torah because they did not fulfill the seven Noahide mitzvot that were incumbent upon them. Rather, this is what the gentiles say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, as for the Jewish people who accepted the Torah, where is the evidence that they fulfilled its mitzvot?

5The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: I will testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, is there a father who can testify about his son? As it is written: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). Since God is considered the Father of the Jewish people, He is disqualified from testifying on their behalf. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Heaven and earth will testify about them that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety.

6The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, in this matter the testimony of heaven and earth is tainted by a conflict of interest, as it is stated: “If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). And concerning this verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, established a condition with the acts of Creation, and said: If the Jewish people accept My Torah at the revelation at Sinai, all is well, but if they do not accept it, I will return you to the primordial state of chaos and disorder.

7And this is similar to that which Ḥizkiyya says with regard to a different matter: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You caused sentence to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was silent” (Psalms 76:9)? If the earth feared, why was it silent, and if it was silent, why did it fear? One who is afraid does not stay silent, and one who remains silent thereby demonstrates that he is not afraid. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse: At first, when God came to give the Torah to the Jewish people, the earth feared that they might not accept it, and it would be destroyed. This is alluded to by the phrase “You caused sentence to be heard.” But ultimately, when the Jews accepted the Torah, the earth was silent. Consequently, heaven and earth are interested parties and cannot testify about the Jewish people’s commitment to the Torah.

8Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the nations: Let the witnesses come from among you and testify that the Jewish people fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. Let Nimrod come and testify about Abraham that he did not engage in idol worship. Let Laban come and testify about Jacob that he is not suspect with regard to robbery (see Genesis 31:36–42). Let the wife of Potiphar come and testify about Joseph that he is not suspect with regard to the sin of adultery (see Genesis 39:7–12).

9Let Nebuchadnezzar come and testify about Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah that they did not prostrate themselves before a graven image. Let Darius come and testify about Daniel that he did not neglect his prayer (see Daniel 6). Let Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Eliphaz the Temanite, and Elihu, son of Barachel, the Buzite, friends of Job (see Job 2:11 and 32:2) come and testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. As it is stated: “All the nations are gathered together… let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9), i.e., the gathered gentiles will submit testimony on behalf of the Jewish people and demonstrate the Jews’ righteousness.

10The gentiles say before Him: Master of the Universe, give us the Torah afresh and we will perform its mitzvot. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: Fools of the world! Do you think you can request this? One who takes pains on Shabbat eve will eat on Shabbat, but one who did not take pains on Shabbat eve, from where will he eat on Shabbat? The opportunity for performing mitzvot has already passed, and it is now too late to ask to perform them. But even so, I have an easy mitzva to fulfill, and its name is sukka ; go and perform it.

11The Gemara asks: And how can you say so, that it is possible to perform a mitzva after the end of this world? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You shall therefore keep the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which I command you this day, to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? This verse teaches that today, in this world, is the time to do them, but tomorrow, in the World-to-Come, is not the time to do them. Furthermore, today is the time to do them, but today is not the time to receive one’s reward, which is granted in the World-to-Come.

12The Gemara explains: But even so, God gave the nations an opportunity to perform a mitzva, as The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically [ beteruneya ] with His creations, but wants them to feel that they have been judged fairly. The Gemara asks: And why does God call the mitzva of sukka an easy mitzva to fulfill? Because performing the mitzva involves no monetary loss.

13Immediately, each and every gentile will take materials and go and construct a sukka on top of his roof. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will set upon them the heat [ makdir ] of the sun in the season of Tammuz, i.e., the summer, and each and every one who is sitting in his sukka will be unable to stand the heat, and he will kick his sukka and leave, as it is stated: “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). The Gemara asks: Why does God heat the sun over them? But didn’t you say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically with His creations? The Gemara answers: This is not considered dealing tyrannically with the gentiles, because for the Jewish people as well, there are times

1when the season of Tammuz extends until the festival of Sukkot , and in such years sitting in the sukka causes them suffering. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rava say that one who suffers in the sukka is exempt from performing the mitzva of sukka , and under these circumstances even a Jew is permitted to leave the sukka ? If so, why are the gentiles criticized for leaving? The Gemara answers: Granted that one is exempt from performing the mitzva and is permitted to leave his sukka , but should one kick it?

2The Gemara resumes its narration: Immediately, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and makes sport of those gentiles, i.e., He laughs at them, as it is stated: “He that sits in heaven makes sport, the Lord has them in derision” (Psalms 2:4). With regard to this verse, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There is no making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He, but on that day alone.

3There are those who teach that which Rabbi Yitzḥak subsequently said with regard to this matter, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: In the future, the nations of the world will come and convert. The Gemara asks: And do we accept them as converts at that time? But isn’t it taught in another baraita : The court does not accept converts in the days of the Messiah; similarly, they did not accept converts either in the days of David or in the days of Solomon, due to a concern that these people wanted to convert for ulterior motives, because the Jewish people were mighty and respected?

4Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that they become converts who have attached themselves to the Jewish people, and they don phylacteries on their heads, phylacteries on their arms, place ritual fringes on their garments, and a mezuza in their doorways.

5When these converts see the war of Gog and Magog, every convert of this sort will say to Gog and Magog: For what purpose did you come? They will say to him: We came to fight against the Lord and against His Messiah, as it is stated: “Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain. The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Messiah” (Psalms 2:1–2).

6And then every one of these converts will tear loose his sign of performance of a mitzva and leave, as it is stated: “Let us tear their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). And the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and makes sport, i.e., laughs or rejoices, as it is stated: “He that sits in heaven makes sport, the Lord has them in derision” (Psalms 2:4). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There is no making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He, but on that day alone.

7The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is there no making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: There are twelve hours in the day. During the first three, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and engages in Torah study. During the second three hours, He sits and judges the entire world. Once He sees that the world has rendered itself liable to destruction, He arises from the throne of judgment and sits on the throne of mercy, and the world is not destroyed.

8During the third set of three hours, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains the entire world, from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice. During the fourth three hours, He sits and makes sport with the leviathan, as it is stated: “There is leviathan, whom You have formed to sport with” (Psalms 104:26). Evidently, God makes sport every day, not only on that one day. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: He makes sport with His creations, just as He sports with the leviathan; He does not make sport of His creations but on that day alone.

9Rav Aḥa said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: From the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no longer any making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He. And from where do we derive that there is no making sport? If we say that it is from that which is written: “And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to weeping, and to lamentation, and to baldness and to girding with sackcloth” (Isaiah 22:12), that is inconclusive: Perhaps that day alone was called for weeping and lamentation, and no additional days.

10Rather, you might suggest that the source is that it is written: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you” (Psalms 137:5–6). This is also inconclusive, as perhaps there is no forgetting of Jerusalem for God, but in any event there is still making sport. Rather, it is derived from this verse: “I have long time held My peace, I have been still, and refrained Myself; now will I cry like a travailing woman, gasping and panting at once” (Isaiah 42:14).

11The Gemara asks: If God no longer makes sport, what does He now do during the fourth three-hour period of the day? The Gemara answers: He sits and teaches Torah to schoolchildren, as it is stated: “Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts” (Isaiah 28:9). The verse is interpreted in the following manner: To whom does God teach knowledge, and to whom does He make to understand the message? To those who are just weaned from the milk and to those who are drawn from the breasts, i.e., children only recently weaned from nursing.

12The 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.

13The Gemara asks: And during the twelve hours of the night, what does God do? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the night is similar to the day, i.e., God performs the same activities as in the day. And if you wish, say instead that He rides on his light cherub and flies in eighteen thousand worlds, as it is stated: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even [ shinan ] thousands” (Psalms 68:18). Do not read it as even [ shinan ], rather read it as: That which are not [ she’einan ]. Since the minimum of thousands is two thousand, the phrase: That which are not thousands, indicates that two thousand are not present, i.e., the chariots of God are twenty thousand minus two thousand, which means that God rides in eighteen thousand worlds. And if you wish, say instead that God sits and listens to the songs from the mouths of the angelic creatures, as it is stated: “By day the Lord will command His loving-kindness, and in the night His song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9).

14§ Rabbi Levi says: Anyone who interrupts his study of words of Torah to occupy himself with mundane matters will be fed with the coals of the broom tree, as it is stated: “They pluck salt-wort from wormwood, and the roots of the broom are their food” (Job 30:4). Reish Lakish says: With regard to anyone who occupies himself with Torah at night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, extends a thread of kindness over him by day, as it is stated: “By day, the Lord will command His kindness, and in the night His song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9). The verse is understood as follows: What is the reason that by day, the Lord will command His kindness to extend over him? It is due to the fact that in the night His song is with me, i.e., he occupies himself at night with Torah, which is referred to as a song.

1by it, as it is written: “For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall set them ablaze, said the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Malachi 3:19). This verse is interpreted as follows: Neither a root shall remain for them in this world, nor will a branch grow for them in the World-to-Come. This teaches that the sun itself will burn and consume the wicked in the future.

2And the righteous will be healed by it, as it is written in the next verse: “But to you that fear My Name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings” (Malachi 3:20). And moreover, not only will they be healed by it, but they will even be rejuvenated by it, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “And you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall.”

3Alternatively, just as in the case of fish of the sea, any fish that is bigger than another swallows the other, so too in the case of people, were it not for the fear of the ruling government, anyone who is bigger than another would swallow the other. And this is as we learned in a mishna ( Avot 3:2) that Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: One should pray for the continued welfare of the government, as were it not for the fear of the government, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.

4§ Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa raises a contradiction between the following verses. It is written: “The Almighty, Whom we have not found out His excellent power” (Job 37:23), which indicates that His power has not been seen. And it is written elsewhere: “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power” (Psalms 147:5), and it is also written: “Your right hand, O Lord, glorious in power” (Exodus 15:6), from which it may be inferred that His power is discernable. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, in the first verse, God’s strength is not seen at a time of judgment, where He acts mercifully, whereas there, in the other verses, they are referring to a time of war, when He wages war against His enemies and His power is seen.

5Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raises a contradiction between the following verses. It is written: “Fury is not in Me” (Isaiah 27:4), and it is written: “The Lord is a jealous and furious God” (Nahum 1:2). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where it states that God has no fury, it is speaking with regard to the Jewish people, whereas there, where it says that God has fury, it is speaking with regard to the nations of the world. Rav Ḥinnana bar Pappa says in explanation of the verse: “Fury is not in Me; would that I were as the briers and thorns in flame! I would with one step burn it altogether” (Isaiah 27:4). “Fury is not in Me,” as I have already taken an oath that I will not destroy the Jewish people; “would that I” had not taken this oath, since then I would be active “as the briers and thorns in flame! I would with one step burn it altogether.”

6And this is the same as that which Rabbi Alexandri says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations” (Zechariah 12:9)? “I will seek” from whom? Does God need to seek permission? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I will seek and search in their records [ benigeni ]; if they have merit, I will redeem them, and if not, I will destroy them.

7And this is the same as that which Rava says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Surely none shall put forth his hand to a ruinous heap, neither because of these things shall help come in one’s calamity [ befido ]” (Job 30:24)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the Jewish people: When I judge the Jewish people, I do not judge them as I judge the nations of the world. When judging the nations of the world, I punish them for all of their transgressions together, as it is written: “A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, will I make it, this also shall be no more” (Ezekiel 21:32). Rather, I punish the Jewish people like the pecking [ kefid ] of a hen, which picks up only a tiny amount each time it pecks.

8Alternatively, even if the Jewish people perform but a few mitzvot before Me, like the pecking of hens that peck in a dunghill, I will combine them to a large reckoning, as it is stated: “Though they peck [ befido ],” i.e., perform mitzvot a little at a time, “they will be saved [ lahen shua ]” (Job 30:24). Alternatively, in reward for the manner in which they cry out [ shua ] and pray before Me, I will save [ moshia ] them. In other words, God punishes the Jewish people for each individual infraction, but He does not destroy them entirely in a moment of fury.

9And this is the same as that which Rabbi Abba says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And though I will redeem them, they have spoken lies against Me” (Hosea 7:13)? I said that I would redeem them through taking away their money in this world so that they should merit the World-to-Come, but they have spoken lies against Me, by saying that I am angry and uninterested in them.

10And this is the same as that which Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Though I have trained [ yissarti ] and strengthened their arms, yet they consider evil against Me” (Hosea 7:15)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I said that I would visit them [ ayasserem ] with afflictions in this world for their benefit, so that their arms would be strengthened in the World-to-Come, but they consider that which I have done as evil.

11With regard to the afflictions of the Jewish people, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu would praise Rav Safra to the heretics by saying that he is a great man. Therefore, they remitted Rav Safra’s obligation to pay taxes for thirteen years, as they relied upon Rabbi Abbahu’s word and wanted to reward a great man. One day they found Rav Safra and said to him: It is written: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore, I will visit upon you all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). The meaning of this verse is unclear, as why would God punish specifically the Jewish people because He loves them? One who has wrath [ siseya ], does he raise it against his beloved? Rav Safra was silent and did not say anything in response to them. They threw a scarf around his neck and tormented him, by pulling and denigrating him.

12Rabbi Abbahu came and found them doing this to Rav Safra. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: Why are you tormenting him? They said to him: And didn’t you say to us that he is a great man? But he did not even know how to tell us the explanation of this verse. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: You can say that I said this praise of Rav Safra to you only with regard to the Oral Law and the statements of tanna’im , but did I say to you that he is knowledgeable with regard to the Bible?

13They said to Rabbi Abbahu: What is different about you Sages of Eretz Yisrael, that you know the Bible as well? Rabbi Abbahu said to them: We, who are situated among you heretics and are forced to debate the meaning of verses, we impose upon ourselves this obligation and analyze verses in depth. By contrast, those Sages of Babylonia, who are not forced to debate you, do not analyze the Bible in such depth.

14The heretics said to Rabbi Abbahu: In that case, you should tell us the meaning of this verse. Rabbi Abbahu said to them: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a person who lends money to two people, one of whom is his beloved, and the other one is his enemy. In the case of his beloved, he collects the debt from him little by little, whereas in the case of his enemy he collects the debt from him all at once. So too, with regard to the Jewish people, God punishes them for each transgression as it occurs, so that they should not receive one severe punishment on a single occasion.

1“And knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Numbers 24:16). Now, this should not be understood to mean that Balaam knew the thoughts of God, as is it possible that Balaam did not know the mind of his animal, and yet he did know the mind of the Most High?

2The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by the claim that Balaam did not know the mind of his animal? When the princes of Moab saw that Balaam was riding on his donkey, they said to him: What is the reason that you do not ride upon a horse, which is more fitting for you? Balaam said to them: I am riding on a donkey because I left my horse in a meadow to graze. Immediately: “And the donkey said to Balaam: Am not I your donkey?” (Numbers 22:30), i.e., the donkey you always use. Balaam said to it: For carrying burdens only, not for riding.

3The donkey further said to Balaam: “Upon which you have ridden.” Balaam said to it: Merely at irregular occurrences. The donkey said to him: “All your life long unto this day” (Numbers 22:30). The donkey added: And moreover, I perform for you riding during the day, and marriage, i.e., intercourse, during the night. The Gemara explains: This is derived from the following comparison: It is written here that Balaam’s donkey said: “Was I ever wont [ hahasken hiskanti ] to do so to you” (Numbers 22:30), and it is written there, with regard to Abishag the Shunammite and King David: “And be a companion [ sokhenet ] unto him; and let her lie in your bosom” (I Kings 1:2). This teaches that the term hiskanti alludes to sexual intercourse.

4The Gemara returns to its previous question: Rather, what is the meaning of: “And knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Numbers 24:16)? It means that he was able to determine precisely the hour at which the Holy One, Blessed be He, is angry. At that moment Balaam would utter his curse and, through God’s anger, it would be fulfilled. And this is what the prophet said to the Jewish people: “O My people, remember now what Balak, king of Moab, devised, and what Balaam, son of Beor, answered him; from Shittim unto Gilgal, that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord” (Micah 6:5).

5Rabbi Elazar says, in explanation of that verse: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My nation, see how many acts of kindness I performed for you, that I did not become angry at you during all of those days when Balaam attempted to curse the Jewish people, and he was not able to find a moment of divine anger. As, had I become angry at you, there would not have remained a remnant or a refugee among the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves. Instead, God restrained His anger and Balaam’s curse went unfulfilled. And this is what Balaam said to Balak: Since God is not becoming angry, I can do nothing, as: “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I execrate whom the Lord has not execrated”? (Numbers 23:8).

6The Gemara further discusses this matter: And how long does His indignation last? It lasts a moment. And how long is a moment? Ameimar, and some say Ravina, said: It lasts as long as it takes to say the word moment [ rega ]. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that God’s anger lasts for only a moment? As it is written: “His anger is but for a moment; His favor, for a lifetime” (Psalms 30:6). And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “Hide yourself for a brief moment, until the anger passes” (Isaiah 26:20), meaning that God’s anger passes in a mere moment.

7The Gemara asks: When is God angry? Abaye said: During the first three hours of the day, when the crest of the rooster whitens in the sun, as though life has left the rooster and it suddenly turns white, that is when God is angry. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t its crest whiten each and every hour? How can this serve as a sign? The Gemara answers: The difference is that every other hour there remain red streaks [ surayekei ] in the rooster’s crest, whereas at that hour of His anger there are no red streaks in its crest.

8The 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.

9Upon awakening, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: I can conclude from the fact that I fell asleep that it is not proper conduct to do this, to curse people, even if they are wicked, as the verse: “And His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9) is written even with regard to sinners. And moreover, it is inappropriate to cause the punishment of another, as it is written: “Punishment, even for the righteous, is not good” (Proverbs 17:26). Even for a righteous person, it is improper to punish another.

10In explanation of the cause of God’s anger, it is taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: When the kings wake up and place their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, the Holy One, Blessed be He, immediately grows angry. This is why God’s anger occurs during the first three hours of the day. Rav Yosef says: A person should not recite the additional prayers during the first three hours of the day on the first day of Rosh HaShana if he is praying individually, as, since the judgment of the entire world is reckoned then, perhaps the Heavenly court will scrutinize his actions and reject him.

11The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, the prayer of the community should not be recited at that time as well. The Gemara explains: The prayer of the community is not rejected even at this time, due to its many merits. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then shouldn’t the morning prayer of one who is praying individually also not be recited at this time? The Gemara answers: Since there is in all places a community that prays the morning prayer at that same time, his prayer is not rejected. By contrast, the additional prayer is recited at different times by different communities, as unlike the morning prayer it does not have a fixed time but can be recited at any point during the day.

12The Gemara raises another difficulty: But didn’t you say that during the first three hours of the day The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and engages in Torah study, and He engages in judgment only during the second set of three hours? The Gemara answers: Reverse the order so that it is stated that He sits in judgment during the first three hours of the day.

13And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not reverse the order. Rather, this is the reason that an individual should not recite the additional prayer during the first three hours of the day when God is engaged in Torah study: In the case of the Torah, with regard to which it is written: Truth, as it is written: “Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Proverbs 23:23), the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act in a manner that is beyond the letter of the law. But with regard to judgment, with regard to which it is not written: Truth, but it is a process that involves mercy and compromise, the Holy One, Blessed be He, can act in a manner that is beyond the letter of the law.

14§ The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the ensuing statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Today, bear witness, shake, the golden calf. The Gemara returns to an earlier discussion (3a), first by citing the matter itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Which I command you this day, to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? This verse teaches that today is the time to do them, i.e., to perform the mitzvot, in this world, but tomorrow, in the World-to-Come, is not the time to do them. Furthermore, today is the time to do them, but today is not the time to receive one’s reward, which is given in the World-to-Come.

1This serves to say to you that if an individual has sinned, one says to him: Go to that famous individual who sinned, King David, and learn from him that one can repent. And if the community sinned, one says to them: Go to the community that sinned, i.e., the Jewish people at the time of the Golden Calf.

2The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to learn about repentance both in the case of an individual and in the case of a community. The reason is that if we had learned this idea only with regard to an individual, one might have thought that he has the option to repent only because his sin is not publicized. But in the case of a community, whose sin is publicized, one might say that the community cannot repent. And likewise, if we had learned this idea only with regard to a community, one might have said that their repentance is accepted because their prayers are more numerous than those of an individual, and they are heard before God. But in the case of an individual, whose merit is not as strong, one might say that he is not able to repent. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

3And this is similar to that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The saying of David, son of Yishai, and the saying of the man raised on high [ al ]” (II Samuel 23:1)? This is the meaning of the verse: The saying of David, son of Yishai, who raised and lightened the yoke [ ullah ] of repentance, as he taught the power of repentance through his own example.

4And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani further says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to anyone who performs one mitzva in this world, the mitzva will precede him and walk before him in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your reward” (Isaiah 58:8). And with regard to anyone who commits one transgression, that transgression will shroud him and lead him on the Day of Judgment, as it is stated: “The paths of their way do wind, they go up into the waste, and are lost” (Job 6:18).

5Rabbi Elazar says: The transgression is tied to him like a dog and does not leave him, as it is stated with regard to Joseph and Potiphar’s wife: “And he did not listen to her, to lie by her, or to be with her” (Genesis 39:10). This teaches that Joseph refused “to lie by her” in this world, which would have meant that he would have had “to be with her” in the World-to-Come.

6§ The Gemara further discusses the sin of the Golden Calf. Reish Lakish says: Come and let us be grateful to our ancestors who sinned with the Golden Calf, as had they not sinned we would not have come into the world. Reish Lakish explains: As it is stated about the Jewish people after the revelation at Sinai: “I said: You are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6), which indicates that they had become like angels and would not have propagated offspring. Then, God states: After you ruined your deeds: “Yet you shall die like a man, and fall like one of the princes” (Psalms 82:7).

7The Gemara asks: Is this to say that if they had not sinned with the Golden Calf they would not have sired children? But isn’t it written that Noah and his children were instructed: “And you, be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 9:7)? The Gemara answers: This instruction was issued only until the revelation at Sinai, but the Jewish people would have become like angels there, had they not sinned. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it also written about the Jewish people who were at the revelation at Sinai: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:27), which means that they were instructed to resume marital relations? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the enjoyment of conjugal rights, not to procreation.

8The Gemara further asks: But isn’t it written: “That it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26), which indicates that they would continue to bear children? The Gemara answers: This verse is referring to those children who stood with them at Mount Sinai, not to future generations.

9The Gemara raises a further difficulty: But doesn’t Reish Lakish say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created man” (Genesis 5:1)? Did Adam the first man have a book? Rather, the verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Adam, the first man, every generation and its expositors, every generation and its Sages, and every generation and its leaders. When Adam arrived at the generation of Rabbi Akiva, he rejoiced in his Torah and was saddened by his death, as Rabbi Akiva was tortured and murdered. Adam said: “How weighty also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them” (Psalms 139:17). It is evident from here that the Jews were destined to bear future generations from the beginning of time.

10And similarly, Rabbi Yosei says: The Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so. As it is stated: “For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). According to Rabbi Yosei, in order for the Messiah to come in the end of days, it is necessary for the future generations to be born.

11The Gemara answers: Do not say that if our ancestors had not sinned we would not have come into the world, as we still would have been born; rather, it would have been as though we had not come into the world. We would have been of no importance, due to the previous generations that would have still been alive. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that if the Jewish people had not sinned with the Golden Calf then they would not have died? But isn’t the chapter that addresses widows whose husbands die childless (Deuteronomy 25:5–10) written in the Torah, and the chapter that addresses the inheritance a deceased father bequeaths to his sons (Numbers 27:8–11) is also written?

12The Gemara answers: These passages were written conditionally, i.e., if the Jewish people were to sin and not become like angels, those halakhot would take effect. The Gemara asks: And are verses written conditionally in this manner? The Gemara answers: Yes, as this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, established a condition with the acts of Creation, and He said: If the Jewish people accept the Torah at the revelation at Sinai, all is well and the world will continue to exist. But if they do not accept it, I will return you to the primordial state of chaos and disorder.

13The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the new formulation of Reish Lakish’s statement, according to which the Jewish people would have become immortal had they not sinned with the Golden Calf. The verse states about the Jewish people after the revelation at Sinai: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever” (Deuteronomy 5:26). The baraita states that although they had reached such an elevated state, it was not possible to nullify the power of the Angel of Death over them, as the decree of death was already issued from the time of creation.

14Rather, the baraita explains that the Jewish people accepted the Torah only in order that no nation or tongue would rule over them, as it is stated in the same verse: “That it might be good for them, and with their children forever.” This indicates that had the Jewish people not sinned they would not have achieved immortality, which contradicts Reish Lakish’s statement.