המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored. One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79). Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect. The Gemara relates:…

I can make an argument that exempts the entire world from judgment, from the day that the Temple was destroyed until now. As it is stated: “Therefore, hear now this, you afflicted and drunken, but not from wine” (Isaiah 51:21), which teaches that in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, all Jews are considered intoxicated and are not responsible for any sins they commit. The Gemara raises an objection to this argument from the following baraita : With regard to one who is intoxicated, his acquisition is a binding acquisition; that is, he cannot retract the transaction when he is sober, and similarly, his sale is a binding sale. Moreover, if he committed a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is executed; and if the offense is punishable by lashes, he is flogged. The principle is that he is like a sober person in all matters, except that he is exempt from prayer. Therefore, even if the people of Israel are considered drunk, they are nonetheless responsible for their actions. The Gemara answers that even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not mean that they should be exempt from liability for all their sins. Rather, what is the meaning of his statement: I can exempt? He, too, meant that he could exempt them from the judgment of prayer, i.e., Jews cannot be held liable for praying without the proper intentions. Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught that an…

It was taught in a baraita in tractate Derekh Eretz that Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after my teacher Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting, in the interest of modesty; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Ben Azzai, a student of Rabbi Akiva, said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent that you observed that much? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. Similarly, we learned in a baraita : Ben Azzai said: I once entered a bathroom after Rabbi Akiva, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. On a similar note, the Gemara relates that Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and seeing to his needs, i.e., having relations with he…

in a case where the bulb has not grown to the size of a span, the distance between the thumb and the little finger of a hand that is spread apart, because at that stage the leaves are very toxic; however, if it has grown to the size of a span, we have no problem with it. Rav Pappa said: We only stated this concern about eating onion leaves in a case where one did not drink beer afterward; however, if he drank beer afterward, we have no problem with it. The Sages taught in a baraita : A person should not eat onion because of the toxins in it. There was an incident with Rabbi Ḥanina, who ate half an onion and half of its toxins, and he fell deathly ill, and his colleagues prayed for mercy for him, and he survived. He was rescued only because the time needed him, as his generation was in need of his teaching, but otherwise he would not have recovered. Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv with beer, and it invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log , similar to drawn water. Rav Kahana strongly objects to this: This is obvious, for what is the difference between this and dye-water? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Dye-water invalidates a ritual bath with a measure of three log , like regular drawn water. They said: There is a difference between the two cases, as there, the liquid is called dye-water; here, it is called beer. Theref…

When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven. The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation. The Gemara comments: T…

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood…

You must be wholehearted with the E TERNAL your God.

This man Daniel surpassed the other ministers and satraps by virtue of his extraordinary spirit, and the king considered setting him over the whole kingdom.

what is the halakha ? Are they liable for eating sacrificial meat while they were ritually impure? Do we say that since ritual impurity of the meat that is eaten was permitted, ritual impurity of the sacrificial portions offered on the altar was also permitted; or perhaps we say that what was permitted was permitted, and what was not permitted was not permitted? Rava said: After all, from where was the halakha pertaining to eating the sacrificial portions in a state of ritual impurity included? It is derived from the halakha with regard to eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, as it is written: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that pertain to the Lord, having his ritual impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20); the apparently superfluous phrase “that pertain to the Lord” is there to include the sacrificial portions and establish that one is liable to receive karet for eating these portions in a state of ritual impurity. Since this is the source, there is a limitation to the halakha pertaining to sacrificial portions: Anywhere that there is liability for eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, there is liability for eating the sacrificial portions in a state of ritual impurity; conversely, anywhere that there is no liability for eating the meat in a state of ritual impurity, such as in…

And he renders impure the object upon which he lies like the upper one. One who engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders the objects upon which he lies ritually impure even if he has no direct contact with them. And if she marries a priest she may partake of teruma from that point onward. And if one of those with whom sexual relations are forbidden by the Torah (see Leviticus, chapter 18) engages in intercourse with her, he is put to death due to his sin with her, and she is exempt from punishment as a minor. And if someone of unfit lineage, i.e., a man who would disqualify her from marrying a priest if he engaged in sexual intercourse with her, engages in intercourse with her, he has disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. This concludes the baraita . The Gemara analyzes this source. It is taught in that baraita : She can be betrothed through sexual intercourse, and it is taught separately: And if she marries a priest. This indicates that intercourse does not effect marriage. The Gemara rejects this: This is what the baraita said: If this betrothal through intercourse is a marriage to a priest, she may partake of teruma . It is possible that there are not two separate stages here but a single action, as sexual intercourse effects marriage. Come and hear a proof from a baraita : And Yoḥanan ben Bag Bag already sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda be…

Command the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me.

You shall keep watch over it until the fourteenth day of this month; and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it at twilight.

It is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. And this leniency applies only in a case where one alters the way that he kneads. The Gemara asks: How does one alter the manner in which he kneads? Rav Ḥisda said: One does not knead the dough all at once but rather a little bit at a time. It was also taught: And they agree that one may mix the shatit , roasted barley to which honey is added, on Shabbat, and drink Egyptian beer, as it is not considered to be for medicinal purposes. The Gemara asks: Didn’t you say: One may not knead? That contradicts the statement that they agree that it is permitted to stir the shatit . The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between the cases. This dispute with regard to shatit is referring to mixing a thick mixture, which is similar to kneading. However, that statement where they agree that mixing is permitted is referring to a soft, thin mixture that cannot be kneaded. And all of these statements are referring to a case where one alters the way he kneads or stirs. The Gemara asks: How does one alter the manner in which he performs these actions? Rav Yosef said: On a weekday one first places the vinegar in a vessel and then places the shatit . On Shabbat one first places the shatit and then places the vinegar. The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, found the one who kneads in his parents’ ho…

and a day of a laborer’s work during the harvest is worth a sela , the equivalent of four silver dinars, for each day, it is prohibited to derive benefit from him, i.e., one may not employ the laborer under these conditions. The reason is that this is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. But if one hires him already from now to work for one dinar a day for an extended period of time, including the harvest season, and the work of a laborer during the harvest is worth a sela , this is permitted. And if it enters your mind, as Rav and Shmuel claim, that if a seller said: I am selling you one kor for thirty sela , each se’a for one sela , he cannot fully renege on the sale in the middle of the transaction, as the buyer acquires each se’a one by one as it is measured, then the halakha in this case should be different. Here too, as he does not agree to one large sum but fixes a price for each day, one by one, it is akin to taking interest, as the laborer works and receives less than he is entitled to in exchange for early payment. And therefore, it should be prohibited to derive benefit from him. Whereas the baraita states: If one hires him from now to work for one dinar a day over an extended period of time, including the harvest, and one day of a laborer’s work during the harvest is worth one sela , th…

that a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual blood is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, is required to do so? If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: Do not say that one recites a blessing orally, but rather he means that one contemplates those blessings in his heart. The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that there is validity to contemplating in his heart? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse and purify himself recites Shema and neither recites the blessings of Shema beforehand nor thereafter? And when he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, Grace after Meals, but does not recite the blessing: Who brings forth bread from the earth, beforehand. However, in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, he contemplates it in his heart rather than utter it with his lips, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters all of the blessings with his lips. Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna shoul…

He was referred to in the verse as son of a living man. The Gemara wonders: Is that to say, the fact that the Bible referred to him with that appellation, that all others are children of the dead? Rather, the verse should be explained as follows: The son of a living man who lives forever, who even in death is referred to as living. Man of Kabze’el who had done mighty deeds, as he accumulated and gathered many workers for the sake of the Torah. Who killed the two lion-hearted men [ Ariel ] of Moab, as after his death he left no one his equal, in either the First Temple or the Second Temple periods, as the Temple is called Ariel (see Isaiah 29:1), and the two Ariel refers to the two Temples. The Sages disagreed over the interpretation of the rest of the verse: “And who descended and slew the lion in the pit on the snowy day.” Some say that this means that he broke blocks of hail and descended and immersed himself in the water to purify himself. Others say that he learned all of the Sifra , the halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus of the school of Rav, on a winter’s day. In contrast to the righteous, who are referred to as living even after their death, the verse states explicitly: “The dead know nothing.” These are the wicked, who even during their lives are called dead, as the prophet Ezekiel said in reference to a king of Israel who was alive: “And you are a slain, wicked…

Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it can be argued that when Rabbi Yehuda said that it is good to take a vow and fulfill it, he said it with regard to a gift offering, but he did not say it with regard to vows. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the mishna teaching that according to Rabbi Yehuda, better than both this and that is one who vows [ noder ] and pays, which indicates that he says this even about vows? The Gemara answers: Teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with the following, emended formulation: Better than both this and that is one who volunteers [ nodev ] a gift offering and pays it. The Gemara asks: What is different about one who vows, i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, which is not proper to do due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block and not bring it promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should also not designate a particular animal as a gift offering, due to the concern that perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said explicitly in a baraita : A person brings his lamb to the Temple courtyard and consecrates it there, and immediately leans on it and slaughters it. Consequently, there is no concern that he will encounter a stumbling block. The…

with regard to the prohibitions against eating leavened bread on Passover and eating on Yom Kippur, which are punishable by karet , we rely on letters sent from the rabbinical court in Eretz Yisrael publicizing whether the year was declared a leap year and when they have declared the New Moon; here, with regard to the mitzva of ritual fringes, which is merely a positive mitzva, is it not all the more so correct that letters can be relied on? Rather, Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: The reason for the rabbinic decree is lest one’s cloak rip within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the corner of the garment, which is where the ritual fringes are placed, and he sew it with linen string and then use the excess string for ritual fringes. And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), which teaches: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Consequently, the strings must be attached to the garment for the sake of the mitzva of ritual fringes. When the individual places the linen string there in order to stitch the garment and then decides to use it for the mitzva of ritual fringes and adds sky-blue wool strings, he does not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes…

the seller is not compelled to sell the field another time, i.e., to provide the purchaser with a document denoting him as the owner of the field. But if he said to him: I will purchase the field on the condition that you will provide a deed in my name, the seller is compelled to sell the field again, i.e., to provide the purchaser with a document denoting him as the owner. The Gemara clarifies the baraita : The Master said: In the case of one who purchases a field in the name of another, the seller is not compelled to sell the field another time. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the purchaser can say to the seller: You knew that I took, i.e., purchased, the field for myself, and it was merely for protection [ ufanaḥya ] that I desired to obtain ownership by claiming to purchase it in the name of the other person, and I do not throw out money for naught. Rather, it was with the intention that you will write another document for him, i.e., the seller, stating that I purchased the field. The baraita therefore teaches us that the seller can say to him: I have performed a matter for you together with the one in whose name you purchased the field, and let him write you another document. The Gemara discusses Abaye’s interpretation of the latter clause of the baraita , which states: But if he said to him: I will purchase the field on the condi…

It is better to go to a house of mourning than to a house of feasting; for that is the end of every mortal, and the living should take it to heart.

disagree with regard to this verse, which is stated with regard to a different offering: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). It is inferred: For him and not for his fellow. One cannot achieve atonement through an offering that has been designated for someone else. Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree with regard to the halakhic conclusions that should be drawn from this law. Rabba holds that the law applies to another who is similar to him: Just as he is eligible for atonement through the sprinkling of the blood of this offering, so the law applies to another who is eligible for atonement. This comes to exclude this uncircumcised person, who is not eligible for atonement. Since an uncircumcised person is not fit for the Paschal lamb, slaughtering it for him does not disqualify the offering. And Rav Ḥisda holds that with regard to this uncircumcised person as well, since he is obligated to bring the Paschal lamb, he is considered eligible for atonement through the Paschal lamb. Why is an uncircumcised person seen as obligated to bring the Paschal lamb? Since if he wants, he can make himself fit through circumcision, and the obligation will automatically apply to him. There is a way for him to include himself among those who eat the offering; therefore, he cannot categorically be considered someone who is not eligible for atonement. Consequently,…

i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of- way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field. Shmuel continues: Nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other’s property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other’s property. And be careful with these, since they are established halakhot . Rava says: The brothers do have all of the aforementioned rights. Rav Ḥama agrees with Shmuel’s opinion, that each brother can do as he pleases on his own property without the other one preventing him from doing so. Since Rav Ḥama’s rulings were mentioned, the Gemara c…

but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota . The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota , it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her. On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were u…

The Gemara questions this analysis: But doesn’t the mishna deal with a case where the stolen item is hers, and yet Rav says she is not betrothed. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, in the baraita , is referring to a situation where he had arranged to betroth her beforehand, which indicates that she has released him from his obligation to return it, but that case, in the mishna, is referring to a situation where he had not arranged his marriage with her, so it is stolen property and she is not betrothed. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was washing her feet in a vessel of water. A certain man came along, grabbed a few dinars from another person, and threw them to her, and said to her: You are betrothed to me. That man subsequently came before Rava, to inquire as to the status of the woman. Rava said: There is not anyone who is concerned for this opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: In an ordinary case of robbery the owner has despaired of recovering the stolen item, and it belongs to the robber. Rather, the assumption is that the owner has not despaired of recovering the stolen item. In this case, since the stolen dinars do not belong to the man, his betrothal is of no effect. The Gemara relates another incident: The was a certain sharecropper who betrothed a woman with a handful [ bemoza ] of onions [ deshamkhei ] taken from the field where he…

“Which I command you this day, will be upon your heart.” Surely the word these, does not come to limit the mitzva of intent. On the contrary, from here you derive that the entire portion requires intent. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva; the entire portion requires intent. Some teach this halakha stated by Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to that which was taught in a Tosefta , where there is a tannaitic dispute. The first tanna holds: One who recites Shema must focus his heart for the entire Shema . Rabbi Aḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Once he focused his heart for the first paragraph alone, he no longer requires intent. With regard to this Tosefta , Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Aḥa who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda. While this differs from the previous version in form, it arrives at the same conclusion. It was taught in another baraita on this subject, which cited different opinions. From: And they will be, recited in Shema , it is derived that it may not be recited out of order. From: Upon your heart, Rav Zutra says: To this point, there is the mitzva of intent; from here on, beginning with the second paragraph, there is only the mitzva of recitation. Rabbi Yoshiya says that it means the opposite: To this point, there is the mitzva of re…

Hear, O Israel! The E TERNAL is our God, the E TERNAL alone.

Had her mother not seen inappropriate [ aziva ] matters or behavior in her that should be stopped, she would not have taken a vow with regard to her for nothing; had you known that the neighbors would say that, would you have taken a vow with regard to her? She said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for her. The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [ pinekas ] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him. Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is “And after vows to make inquiry” (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: And although Rabbi Yannai broached dissolution with him in this way, we do not broach dissolution in this manner for one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful. And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan s…

she persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. Therefore, in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother. The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him. Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering as well, as it were. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is considered as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent fr…

Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is made of wheat, which is slippery and takes longer to remove, or is this speaking of a case where the loaf is made of barley, which is easily removed? Is this speaking of a case where the loaf is soft, so that it may catch upon the side of the basket, or a case where the loaf is hard, where this is not a concern? The Gemara states: These questions shall stand unresolved. The Gemara notes: Rav Yitzḥak bar Rav Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Each and every one of these Sages who presented an opinion with regard to the time needed for the initial stage of intercourse estimated based on himself, i.e., based on his own experience. The Gemara asks: But there is ben Azzai, who did not marry, so how could he estimate based on his own experience? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he was married and separated from his wife. And if you wish, say that he heard from his teacher. And if you wish, say his knowledge can be understood based on the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him” (Psalms 25:14), teaching that those who fear God are privy to knowledge beyond their personal experience. § Having quoted an allusion from the verse: “For on account of a harlot a man is brought to a loaf of bread” (Proverbs 6:26), the Gemara offers another interpretation of that verse. Rav Avira interpreted a verse homiletically; there…

Yet even among those nations you shall find no peace, nor shall your foot find a place to rest. G OD will give you there an anguished heart and eyes that pine and a despondent spirit.